PDA

View Full Version : PS2 vs Dreamcast Graphics



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

HalfBit
01-12-2014, 01:00 AM
(Ahem) (clears throat) hello, gentlemen. As my official first post/thread, I have decided to make a ps2 vs dreamcast thread. To begin: I own a dreamcast. I do not own a ps2. I believe the dreamcast could have easily matched the ps2 given more time. (Actually, I wish homebrew would focus more on dreamcast 3d but oh well.) so, welcome myself to sega 16 and let the fanboy carnage begin! (75 million polygon claims XD)

HalfBit
01-12-2014, 01:02 AM
Hi, HalfBit! Glad do welcome you to the site! Honestly, I like dreamcast better.



XD

KitsuneNight
01-12-2014, 02:49 AM
do new members talk to themselves these days ?

and we already have numerous dreamcast vs ps 2 threads another one isnt needed we dont need more fanboy carnage

and if you dont have the ps2 how exactly can you compare the two then and then claim the dreamcast is superior ?
other then you know arbitrary fanboi logic

Gogogadget
01-12-2014, 08:08 AM
PS2 is better and has a larger library of games, and a better controller.

Dreamcast has better graphics... apparently.

Yeah, not sure I see much of a fight here?

WuTang
01-12-2014, 08:08 AM
The PS2 will go down as the console with the best back catalog of any system produced ever

KitsuneNight
01-12-2014, 10:02 AM
PS2 is better and has a larger library of games, and a better controller.

yes except for the D pad thats still arse


Dreamcast has better graphics... apparently.

does it ? im not seeing it unless he measn that the dreamcasts graphics are less "milky"


Yeah, not sure I see much of a fight here?

more of a limpwristed noodle slapfight

The Jackal
01-12-2014, 12:38 PM
PS2 has a better controller.


That's...debatable.

KitsuneNight
01-12-2014, 12:44 PM
^ better then the dreamcast then with its mushy d pad and questionable analouge stick

come on all sega had to do was recreate the nights analouge pad for the dreamcast and they ballsed it up

The Jackal
01-12-2014, 12:55 PM
I prefer the DC thumb pad and dpad to the PS2 equivalents. The PS2 dpad is rubbish imo and I'm not really fond of the analogue sticks; had to buy some of these (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2x-Black-PS2-Controller-Thumbsticks-Analogue-Thumb-Grip-Mushroom-domed-sticks-/300995477925?pt=UK_VG_Replacement_Parts_Tools&hash=item4614ba81a5) just to make them acceptable.

KitsuneNight
01-12-2014, 01:00 PM
arent those the orginal ps2 thumb sticks ?

The Jackal
01-12-2014, 01:05 PM
arent those the orginal ps2 thumb sticks ?

No they're grips that make the sticks more comfortable to use.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-12-2014, 01:10 PM
does it ? im not seeing it unless he measn that the dreamcasts graphics are less "milky"


It does when it comes to texturing and how it can handle it's memory. PS2 has more Memory that's unified, but it can't do any kind of texture compression. Textures have to be stored uncompressed in RAM. Dreamcast has 8MB of dedicated VRAM and it can do texture compression. So Dreamcast can use it's memory more effectively in this aspect. If you have say 20MB of textures you can easily compress that down to say 5MB on the Dreamcast where as on the PS2 it takes of 20MB of your unified 32MB. So on the PS2 you reach a point where you need to reduce the amount of stuff you have in your game so you have more room for textures, or reduce your texture quality.

A good example of how the PS2's Memory set up really limited a game is Phantasy Star Universe. In some aspects this game took a few steps backwards compared to the original PSO on the Dreamcast. Texture variety took a hit so instead of having lots of different textures giving a really colorful area, we got a lot of bland and repeating textures.

Another big step back was that areas were broken up into smaller blocks and each block could only have 3 enemy types. This was a huge step back from PSO where we had huge maps with 8 or more enemy types. While PSU did allow 2 more players in a party, there were a few issues that arose with it. You could no longer quickly equip any weapon in your inventory. You had to place them in an action palette and you only had 6 at a time.

To make matters worse, on PS2 there was horrific loading when switching weapons on your weapon palette for the first time while all the weapons loaded in. So PS2 players would essentially have to manually go through their weapon palette every time they entered a new area to ensure all their weapons were loaded in. If this wasn't done you could find yourself having no weapon to fight with for about 5-10 seconds while it loaded in. Switching a weapon onto your palette would cause a similar issue.

KitsuneNight
01-12-2014, 01:10 PM
oh

okay

im expecting the dual analoge controller one of these days

HalfBit
01-12-2014, 01:30 PM
I'm just curious what people think. Me, I think that dreamcast is better in SOME areas, and easily matches the ps2. But I'm trying not to be completely biased.

HalfBit
01-12-2014, 01:31 PM
And, the ps2 may be better but in 20 years who is going to remember any of this anyways? :p

KitsuneNight
01-12-2014, 01:36 PM
in 20 years the ps 2 will still be remembered for being the first console with a dvd
for helping breaking dvd's inthe mainstream
for selling 150 million units
and for having a huge library

people are still remembering the nes and sms and megadrive after all

retrospiel
01-12-2014, 01:50 PM
Some PS2 games run in odd resolutions like 320x480 or 640x240 it seems. Dreamcast games run in 640x480 (except for those NeoGeo and CPS2/3 ports of course).

zyrobs
01-12-2014, 04:27 PM
PS2 vs DC is like the Saturn vs Playstation just with the roles reversed.

Team Andromeda
01-12-2014, 04:43 PM
Textures and AA are where the DC was in front of the PS2, but sorry for all out polygons and graphics the PS2 did stuff the DC could only dream of matching . GOD OF WAR 1 and II, Metal Gear Soild 2, Silent Hill 3 and GT 3/4 are way in front of the anything the DC could hope to produce

Gogogadget
01-12-2014, 05:01 PM
That's...debatable.

It is, except for the bit where the PS2 controller has 10 buttons whilst the Dreamcast has only 4 face buttons + 2 analog triggers, and only 1 analog stick where as when the PS2 took off games requiring more than one analog stick became commonplace.

The Dreamcast is a good console, but it died before it's generation really took off and the other consoles have far too many games for me to even put the Dreamcast anywhere near the other consoles libraries.

Team Andromeda
01-12-2014, 05:24 PM
It does when it comes to texturing and how it can handle it's memory. PS2 has more Memory that's unified, but it can't do any kind of texture compression. Textures have to be stored uncompressed in RAM. Dreamcast has 8MB of dedicated VRAM and it can do texture compression. So Dreamcast can use it's memory more effectively in this aspect. If you have say 20MB of textures you can easily compress that down to say 5MB on the Dreamcast where as on the PS2 it takes of 20MB of your unified 32MB. So on the PS2 you reach a point where you need to reduce the amount of stuff you have in your game so you have more room for textures, or reduce your texture quality

The thing is and what you overlook is the PS2 huge bandwidth with was simply insane and huge for the time .


A good example of how the PS2's Memory set up really limited a game is Phantasy Star Universe. In some aspects this game took a few steps backwards compared to the original PSO on the Dreamcast.

Its not really a good example . Sonic Team were in a bit of mess in those days and some of their coding on both the PS2 and XBox was below par

TrekkiesUnite118
01-12-2014, 05:33 PM
Textures and AA are where the DC was in front of the PS2, but sorry for all out polygons and graphics the PS2 did stuff the DC could only dream of matching . GOD OF WAR 1 and II, Metal Gear Soild 2, Silent Hill 3 and GT 3/4 are way in front of the anything the DC could hope to produce

I think we discussed this before but Gran Turismo 4 is right on the edge of the amount of Polygons the Dreamcast can do. It supposedly does 4 Million Polygons per second which at 60fps would be around 66k per frame. Considering that the cars average 4000 polygons and there are 6 of them on the track at a time that would be about 24k Polygons for the cars which would leave about 40k more for the scenery. So polygon wise it probably wouldn't be impossible to get something like GT4 running on the Dreamcast.


The thing is and what you overlook is the PS2 huge bandwidth with was simply insane and huge for the time .

The bandwidth does help, though the lack of texture compression does still hurt it. Think of it like this. We have 20MB of textures on both systems. On Dreamcast this wont fit into VRAM, but that's not an issue as we can compress them down to 5MB and it fits happily in VRAM. On PS2 we can't compress it, but 20MB will fit in our 32MB of RAM. Now when the GPUs have to read this from RAM I believe is where the bandwidth comes into play (Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.) If I remember correctly the bandwidth on the Dreamcast is 800 MB/s and on the PS2 it's 1.2 GB/s. Now if we want to see how many times per second we can move that texture data over we'd divide 800 by 5 for the Dreamcast, and 1200 by 20 for the PS2. The end result is on the Dreamcast we can move those same textures 160 times to the GPU in a second, where as on the PS2 we can only do it 60 times.

I remember reading this years ago here:

http://www.segatech.com/technical/consolecompare/

Now how accurate this is I don't really know. Though if it is accurate that does give a very interesting comparison between the two. If the PS2 had Texture compression this argument wouldn't even exist. It's probably why so many Dreamcast games have better textures than their PS2 counterparts.



Its not really a good example . Sonic Team were in a bit of mess in those days and some of their coding on both the PS2 and XBox was below par

Sonic Team had made at least 4 or 5 PS2 games by the time Phantasy Star Universe was released. So I'd say they had their shit together by that point. It's pretty clear that the issues with PSU's design were caused by the PS2's limitations. On the Japanese PC version when they dropped PS2 support suddenly all those limitations went a way and we started getting more variety in textures for the new areas, more enemies per block, blocks became larger, etc.

Team Andromeda
01-12-2014, 05:45 PM
I think we discussed this before but Gran Turismo 4 is right on the edge of the amount of Polygons the Dreamcast can do. It supposedly does 4 Million Polygons per second which at 60fps would be around 66k per frame. Considering that the cars average 4000 polygons and there are 6 of them on the track at a time that would be about 24k Polygons for the cars which would leave about 40k more for the scenery. So polygon wise it probably wouldn't be impossible to get something like GT4 running on the Dreamcast.


It way and above anything what the DC could do and you can just compare GT 4 or 3 to F355, Sega GT and MSR and see that GT 4/3 is streets ahead of those titles

Black_Tiger
01-12-2014, 06:03 PM
I think we discussed this before but Gran Turismo 4 is right on the edge of the amount of Polygons the Dreamcast can do. It supposedly does 4 Million Polygons per second which at 60fps would be around 66k per frame. Considering that the cars average 4000 polygons and there are 6 of them on the track at a time that would be about 24k Polygons for the cars which would leave about 40k more for the scenery. So polygon wise it probably wouldn't be impossible to get something like GT4 running on the Dreamcast.

Look at how good Le Mans 24 Hours looked on Dreamcast four years earlier.

Barone
01-12-2014, 06:16 PM
It is, except for the bit where the PS2 controller has 10 buttons whilst the Dreamcast has only 4 face buttons + 2 analog triggers, and only 1 analog stick where as when the PS2 took off games requiring more than one analog stick became commonplace.

The Dreamcast is a good console, but it died before it's generation really took off and the other consoles have far too many games for me to even put the Dreamcast anywhere near the other consoles libraries.
This. +1.


Look at how good Le Mans 24 Hours looked on Dreamcast four years earlier.
Yep.
I don't have the percentages but I think we could say that the Dreamcast games of its first two years had, overall, higher frame rate than the PS2's first two years games.
Also, games like Rayman 2 are 60 fps on the DC and not 60 fps on the PS2. Just saying...

TrekkiesUnite118
01-12-2014, 06:19 PM
It way and above anything what the DC could do and you can just compare GT 4 or 3 to F355, Sega GT and MSR and see that GT 4/3 is streets ahead of those titles

Yeah, that has nothing to do with the fact that those games are years older :roll:.

Yharnamresident
01-12-2014, 08:29 PM
Why aren't you guys hatin on the PS2 for only having 48 audio channels? you're supposed to surpass the competition in every aspect!!

Yharnamresident
01-12-2014, 08:45 PM
PS2 weaknesses:
-tough to program for
-no texture compression, overall texture capabilities are weak
-don't got 64 audio channels like the competition

Dreamcast weaknesses:
-low storage space, 1.2 GBs ain't enough for sh!t
-main RAM should've been bumped up to 24 MBs. Kinda ironic considering they were originally planning to give the Dreamcast only 8MBs main RAM, oh god that would've went sour
-controller was deprecated even at launch

Bottino
01-12-2014, 09:07 PM
The Dreamcast is a good console, but it died before it's generation really took off and the other consoles have far too many games for me to even put the Dreamcast anywhere near the other consoles libraries.

Are there really that many consoles that have a library so much better than the Dreamcast?

IMO the Dreamcast produced in 3 years a library that's better than the N64, X-Box and Game Cube combined. Maybe that's just the fanboy in me speaking, but Sony fanboys are everywhere, so...



It way and above anything what the DC could do and you can just compare GT 4 or 3 to F355, Sega GT and MSR and see that GT 4/3 is streets ahead of those titles.

Are you comparing a 2005 release with games from 2000?

sheath
01-12-2014, 09:18 PM
What I like about the Dreamcast, and other "failed" Sega consoles, is the library of completely unique games. The graphics being generally smoother than PS2 games is just another perk. Also, analog sticks beats four bumper/shoulder buttons any day of the week for most games. By the time the PS2 "took off" with actual software that needed Dual Analog sticks, it was for games with shoddy AI cameras that forced the player to play Actor and Director. FPS wasn't the PS2's strong suit for YEARS remember, and pressure sensitive face buttons are a complete joke.

If the PS2 hadn't lasted ten freaking years it would be remembered as a DVD player first, a PS1 second and a PS2 player third. Also, there are dedicated threads for this discussion all over the forum already. The PS2's supposed polygon performance advantage (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?23661-Dreamcast-Appreciation-Thread&p=564936&viewfull=1#post564936) has already been discussed in the Dreamcast appreciation thread and the 6th Generation thread.

-edit-

Some video comparisons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPk9NDTn2LE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGt76tFdCzA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F9Ndn4Se-I

Sword of the Berserk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSSqFi6ii-c

Draconus Cult of the Wyrm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awGtqDq7xU8

Armoured Priest
01-12-2014, 10:53 PM
It is, except for the bit where the PS2 controller has 10 buttons whilst the Dreamcast has only 4 face buttons + 2 analog triggers, and only 1 analog stick where as when the PS2 took off games requiring more than one analog stick became commonplace.

The Dreamcast is a good console, but it died before it's generation really took off and the other consoles have far too many games for me to even put the Dreamcast anywhere near the other consoles libraries.

Does beg the question, if the DC had survived, and Sega felt a need, was there anything stopping them from doing an updated controller...its not like Sega hadn't done this very thing twice before (6-button controller, and Nights Saturn Analog controller). Sony did it as well, the original PS1 controller had no analog input at all.

sheath
01-12-2014, 11:19 PM
Does beg the question, if the DC had survived, and Sega felt a need, was there anything stopping them from doing an updated controller...its not like Sega hadn't done this very thing twice before (6-button controller, and Nights Saturn Analog controller). Sony did it as well, the original PS1 controller had no analog input at all.

No this is absolutely impossible. Sega was stuck with the Dreamcast as is complete with small VMUs and single analog stick four face button control pad. It is impossible to upgrade consoles with newer peripherals. ;)

Splatterhouse5
01-12-2014, 11:26 PM
Are there really that many consoles that have a library so much better than the Dreamcast?

IMO the Dreamcast produced in 3 years a library that's better than the N64, X-Box and Game Cube combined. Maybe that's just the fanboy in me speaking, but Sony fanboys are everywhere, so...



Combined? Ooofff, that is a helluva fanboy opinion. I had fun with a DC BITD, but I would only prefer the DC library over the N64 library.

sheath
01-12-2014, 11:35 PM
Given that since the N64 launched most games are in the same genres, and the Dreamcast hit on all of them quite nicely, I don't think it is necessarily a fanboy position to prefer the Dreamcast library. God of War is nothing new, at all, it isn't even a particularly well playing game. The only thing the Dreamcast lacks is five versions of every game with a different subtitle. I generally prefer the originals in any given series, with rare exception.

Then there are the thematic differences in the libraries of the PS2 or the Dreamcast, which I find much more difficult to define. I would say the Dreamcast is the last Arcade-Action console, and the PS2 is the first mainstream/core console. The former emphasized challenge and gameplay, the later emphasized cinematic quality and whatever theme was popular that year (usually dark/noir urban violence).

Bottino
01-12-2014, 11:58 PM
Combined? Ooofff, that is a helluva fanboy opinion. I had fun with a DC BITD, but I would only prefer the DC library over the N64 library.

Well , opinions are always subjective, but i cannot see any scenario where the libraries of both Game Cube and X-Box beats the DC one. That, of course , is based on my taste for gaming.

Can i get some hardcore arcade action with those other consoles, while having - as sheath mentioned before - an line-up of truly unique games of different types to play?

If the answer is NO, then type: The cake is a lie. The Dreamcast isn't.

If the answer is YES, then type: Sega Orbi 2014Free Mr.Sega.


Given that since the N64 launched most games are in the same genres, and the Dreamcast hit on all of them quite nicely, I don't think it is necessarily a fanboy position to prefer the Dreamcast library. God of War is nothing new, at all, it isn't even a particularly well playing game. The only thing the Dreamcast lacks is five versions of every game with a different subtitle. I generally prefer the originals in any given series, with rare exception.

Then there are the thematic differences in the libraries of the PS2 or the Dreamcast, which I find much more difficult to define. I would say the Dreamcast is the last Arcade-Action console, and the PS2 is the first mainstream/core console. The former emphasized challenge and gameplay, the later emphasized cinematic quality and whatever theme was popular that year (usually dark/noir urban violence).

This.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-13-2014, 12:08 AM
I wouldn't say the PS2 emphasized entirely on cinematic qualities. I mean there's plenty of Arcade and Action titles available on the PS2, a lot of the same ones that are on the Dreamcast for that matter. Honestly had the Dreamcast survived I'm sure we would have seen ports of GTA, Resident Evil 4, Non Square Enix JRPGs, etc. The Dreamcast was simply dead before a lot of those games started coming out.

And again I wouldn't really say the Dreamcast was the last console to give a good focus towards action and arcade style games. Both the Gamecube and the Wii have a good inclination towards that style too.

sketch
01-13-2014, 12:16 AM
And again I wouldn't really say the Dreamcast was the last console to give a good focus towards action and arcade style games. Both the Gamecube and the Wii have a good inclination towards that style too.

I always felt like the Gamecube was the spiritual successor to the DC. Small, compact case, four ports on the front, non-DVD/proprietary disc format, super clean graphics, and arcadey games.

The "clean" aspect of the DCs graphics is what always appealed to me. The PS2 had more horsepower as I understand it, but to look at the games, the DC games always looked better (crisper, better textures, better polygons) to my eye. The GC had that same effect (I preferred its graphics to the PS2's as well).

sheath
01-13-2014, 01:12 AM
Since this thread is obviously going to repeat the same cycle. Some more vids from the Dreamcast Appreciation thread:

Silent Hill 3 Cutscenes (Actual PS2 Footage?) From 4:39:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtLzbQ81Tw8

Silent Hill 3 actual Gameplay: @1:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT4KHYZY4Q0

Metal Gear Solid 2 Shell Core Gameplay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61jRmqHSU9E

What do the three videos above have in common? Indistinct texture mapping with lighting effects to supplement the lack of detail, reasonably high detail main character models.

Shenmue 2 Gameplay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6l6Vweg9h0

Headhunter Gameplay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2rj_zjt_5s

I would also like to say that the Draconus and Berserk videos I posted earler seem to be clearly better in everything texture mapped and lit polygonal 3D aside from possibly some of the main character's facial animations.

God of War is scripted throughout, so it is too bad that there isn't a Dreamcast game that amps up the polygon counts through eliminating gameplay like that. Shenmue basically invented quick timer events, and even it doesn't jump graphic engines during those scenes. I wish the rest of the Soul Reaver Trilogy was also released on Dreamcast, I'm sure Defiance would have made for an interesting comparison.

Sony fans will never recognize that God of War is a Legacy of Kain Defiance rip off through and through.

o.pwuaioc
01-13-2014, 01:17 AM
The GC had that same effect (I preferred its graphics to the PS2's as well).
Well, the GC was actually more powerful than the PS2.

HalfBit
01-13-2014, 01:31 AM
Alright, first. Glad this thread is turning out XD
Second: specs. Dreamcast CPU can run 10.5 million polys per second but the gpu limits it to 7 million.
So, if gran tourism 4 ran at 4 million, with effects etc. than dreamcast could probably run it. Although, longer loading probably because of ram limits.

sheath
01-13-2014, 01:34 AM
Actually, Dreamcast loading would be shorter and more frequent due to RAM limitations. For a Racing game this shouldn't factor though, only for open city games and sandbox games. The GD-ROM drive is actually quite fast as well at filling up the 16MB RAM + 8MB VRAM. I would say that it should be able to fill both in less than 12 seconds, which would be a land speed record for PS2 Sandbox games.

sketch
01-13-2014, 02:20 AM
Well, the GC was actually more powerful than the PS2.

I've read articles arguing both sides (saying PS2 or GC was more powerful). They are very different architectures as I understand it, with the PS2 being difficult to utilize properly. However, regardless of which is more powerful (I'm certain the tech-oriented around here can debate that for days on end), I can only tell you what my eyes say, which is that the GC graphics looked "cleaner" to me (generally speaking), in much the same way the DC graphics looked "cleaner". The PS2 graphics never looked that great to me on the whole, and it wasn't just a matter of "power". The PS2 was likely more powerful than the DC, as it came out later, but I still preferred the DC's output.

Yharnamresident
01-13-2014, 03:05 AM
No arguing necessary, the GCN is more powerful in almost every aspect. I think the PS2 has higher bandwidth(?), but other than that, it is surpassed in every category.

Team Andromeda
01-13-2014, 07:07 AM
Yeah, that has nothing to do with the fact that those games are years older

The DC systems is older, so it was always going to lose out and be less powerful . GT3 A Spec came out a year after F355 and wiped the floor with F355 on every technical level


Are you comparing a 2005 release with games from 2000?

A Spec came out in 2001 , MGS 2 demo came out with ZOE in 2001 , DMC also came out in 2001 and well those were 3 games that started to show off the power of the PS2 . Also, no one talks about it but ESPN International Track & Field in 2000 really was the 1st to show off the higher number of polygons on the PS2 and completely destroyed the DC version and also SEGA own Athlete's game too.


By the time the PS2 "took off" with actual software that needed Dual Analog sticks, it was for games with shoddy AI cameras that forced the player to play Actor and Director. FPS wasn't the PS2's strong suit for YEARS remember, and pressure sensitive face buttons are a complete joke.

The lack of buttons on the DC pad and the lack of a 2nd Stick was a total cock up on SOJ part and everyone knows it deep down . I hate the PS2 pad though


Look at how good Le Mans 24 Hours looked on Dreamcast four years earlie

4 Years ? GT 3 came in out in '2001' a year after and unlike Le Mans run at 60 fps . Will give big credit to Le Mans for dynamic lighting and weather which was away ahead of its time and something not even the likes of Forza 5 handle


I would also like to say that the Draconus and Berserk videos I posted earler seem to be clearly better in everything texture mapped and lit polygonal 3D aside from possibly some of the main character's facial animations.

DC was brilliant at textures but lost out in Polygons . Also the PS2 can handle Shenmue like games and one only needs to play SEGA's own Yakuza 1 and II to see that - Yakuza 2 is a stunning technical achievement on the PS2

Gogogadget
01-13-2014, 07:23 AM
Are there really that many consoles that have a library so much better than the Dreamcast?

IMO the Dreamcast produced in 3 years a library that's better than the N64, X-Box and Game Cube combined. Maybe that's just the fanboy in me speaking, but Sony fanboys are everywhere, so...

I'd say it beats out N64 but for some reason I just hate that console, X-Box and Gamecube i'd rather have over a Dreamcast.

The Dreamcast is a good, unique console but I just see it as the weakest link if it's part of that generation, mostly due to the fact that it never really got it's fair share and was discontinued far too soon.

zyrobs
01-13-2014, 08:45 AM
Alright, first. Glad this thread is turning out XD
Second: specs. Dreamcast CPU can run 10.5 million polys per second but the gpu limits it to 7 million.
So, if gran tourism 4 ran at 4 million, with effects etc. than dreamcast could probably run it. Although, longer loading probably because of ram limits.

DC capped at less than 5 million polys. The PVR2 runs out of space for the command list by that point.

Team Andromeda
01-13-2014, 08:50 AM
DC capped at less than 5 million polys. The PVR2 runs out of space for the command list by that point.

Plus it doesn't really have enough memory to handle more than 5/6 million polygons anyway if you listen to most clued up people on the DC and developers

HalfBit
01-13-2014, 11:33 AM
Shenmue 2 had a 6 million polys per second count. I don't know gt3's polygon count but if a game like gt 3 or 4 was run on the dreamcast, then it would be possible. I don't know the poly count for god of war either, but it's probably out of the dc's reach.

Also, in response to the guy who said yakuza on ps2 is better than shenmue:
Yakuza has a fixed camera angle. It's a lot easier to know what is going to be seen on screen for developers.
Shenmue, the camera goes anywhere. But yakuza is fixed. It makes yakuza easily more detail able but also not nearly as impressive as shenmue.

sheath
01-13-2014, 11:53 AM
I'm pretty sure Shenmue caps out at 3 million polygons per second. Also, one of the articles I linked to shows that as late as 2003 PS2 developers were struggling to maintain 1.5 million polygons per second at 25-30FPS even into 2003. Most weren't even maintaining that framerate with 52,000 polygons per frame.

The PS2's polygon prowess is entirely exaggerated, an urban myth a fabrication of Ken Kuturagi's cracked out brain and idiot Sony fans. Resident Evil 4 had to have its textures and lighting chopped for the PS2, and the polygon counts were dropped to 900,000 per second from the Gamecube version's 1.5 Million. Nobody thought Resident Evil 4 on either system looked low detail, quite the opposite. Why? The entire generation was floating around 1 Million polygons per second, especially outside of Racers and FPS.

Team Andromeda
01-13-2014, 12:55 PM
Shenmue 2 had a 6 million polys per second count

That's a myth . Yu Suzuki said that Shenmue handles over 3 and half million polygons I'm pretty sure of it


Yakuza has a fixed camera angle. It's a lot easier to know what is going to be seen on screen for developers

I take it you've never played the game then . With the right stick you can control the camera also Yakuza 2 got a far better frame rate

Barone
01-13-2014, 01:40 PM
Combined? Ooofff, that is a helluva fanboy opinion. I had fun with a DC BITD, but I would only prefer the DC library over the N64 library.
I sense a lot of fanboysm here...

To say that you prefer the DC library over any other given console is one thing... Maybe a very Sega passionate opinion, but still valid as an opinion.


OTOH, to state that the DC library is better than N64, GC and Xbox combined is totally absurd or just a confession of your ignorance about the other consoles libraries.
Some genres are practically not covered in the DC library, to begin with. Some others have like a half-dozen games with only one or two being actually good/great...
DC's library highlights are Racing, Fighting, Action Adventure, Scrolling Shooters and maybe 3D Platformers. The rest is average-at-best.

DC vs N64:
I think the DC has the edge in terms of Racing games, despite the lower quantity. N64 has the edge in terms of futuristic racers IMO but it fails in terms of arcade and sim (big time) racing games when compared to the DC. F1 is pretty even IMO and nothing special in both.
Fighting games are worlds better on the DC and there are much more.
Action Adventure is way better on the DC.
3D platformers is a close contest but I think it's better on the N64 actually. If you like so much to claim unique/innovative games, Glover on the N64 is more unique and innovative than any DC offering in this genre. If you want to talk about limited/scripted gameplay, say "Sonic Adventure".
FPS is way better on the N64.
TPS is even, a draw. Two very good titles on both sides and a few other games.
RPG is way better on the DC.
Other genres like sports, light gun, scrolling shooters and flight games are a no-go on N64. And in terms of arcade-style games the DC does win easily.
So, uh, the DC wins by a good margin but it doesn't win in all genres and, for an example, people which love FPS games could easily prefer the N64 over the DC.

DC vs GC:
Racing is better on the DC; the better games are really great while on the GC they're mostly OK.
Fighting is better on the DC, same reason as above and also more variety on the DC.
Action Adventure is close but I think the GC wins; both have some really great titles but the GC has more variety in terms of gameplay and more quantity of good/great games.
Sports are very close GC has more different sports covered, DC has some really nice games like Virtua Tennis... I think it's a draw.
FPS is way better on the GC.
TPS is way better on the GC.
Beat'em ups are also better represented on the GC.
3D platformers are also clearly better on the GC.
RPG is very close, I think it's a draw.
Scrolling Shooters are better on the DC.
Flight games are close 'cause the only two good GC games are really good IMO but I think the DC wins due to having also very good games and more variety.
DC wins Light Gun by W.O..
Compilations are a no-go on the DC.
So, in the end, it's either a draw or a very close call in one of the sides depending on your personal preferences, but the DC library has no major advantage overall by any stretch of imagination. DC wins in the more arcadey genres, yes.

DC vs Xbox:
Racing is better on the Xbox, hands down. Its racing library is WAY more rounded than the DC and it has many very good/great racing games of all sorts.
Fighting is pretty even, DC has some more appealing titles but Xbox has some games which are sorely missing on the DC... I think it's a draw.
Action Adventure is clearly better on the Xbox IMO, some sub-genres are totally absent on the DC.
FPS is worlds better on the Xbox.
TPS is worlds better on the Xbox.
Beat'em ups are worlds better on the Xbox.
3D platformers is pretty close IMO, DC has too few games but most of the Xbox stuff is quite mediocre... I think it's a draw.
Action RPG is far better on the Xbox.
Sports games are far better on the Xbox.
"Classic" RPG is far better on the DC.
Scrolling Shooters are better on the DC.
Flight games are slightly better on the Xbox. It also has lots of other simulation games that DC lacks.
Light Gun games are far better on the DC.
Compilations are a no-go on the DC and there's plenty of good stuff on the Xbox.
So I think it's pretty clear that the Xbox library wins by a good margin. And it's a fallacy that the DC is the "last Arcade-Action console"; the Xbox library is actually stronger both in arcade conversions, Action-oriented games and Arcade-style racing games by a HUGE margin. DC still has the edge in terms of Scrolling Shooters and Light Gun games but those were never the *only* typical arcade genres.

Talking about DC vs N64+GC+Xbox in terms of library and calling the DC's better is clearly nonsense. The DC might have the edge in three small genres and the rest is all better on the combined library of the trio.



Now, it's a mindless comparison IMO but since sheath once again showed his ultimate hatred against Sony/Playstation...
DC vs PS2:
Racing is worlds better on the PS2. Some stuff like F1 and Rally games (which are very important for many racing fans) is heavily one sided in favor of the PS2.
Fighting is worlds better on the PS2. Tons more of great 2D games and the same for 3D.
Action Adventure is waaaaay better on the PS2, some sub-genres are totally absent on the DC.
FPS is worlds better on the PS2.
TPS is worlds better on the PS2.
Beat'em ups are worlds better on the PS2.
3D platformers is better on the PS2, hands down.
Whatever RPG is waaaay better on the PS2.
Scrolling Shooters are better on the PS2, several great exclusives.
Flight games are much better on the PS2.
Light Gun games are slightly better on the PS2.
Compilations are a no-go on the DC and there's tons stuff on the PS2.
...
So, uh, you must be hugely biased or totally mindless to ditch the PS2 library... You can always rise the fanboy cards of "quality rate" or "Oh, this one Sega game is better than the other 100 games in the same genre" or "When both were alive the DC had the edge in this genre" but it will never change the fact that the PS2 library is actually way more rounded, has tons more of great exclusives, tons more of arcade ports...
You may hate the hundreds of "cinema" and "atmospheric" games that the PS2 has, it's OK. Just don't imply that there aren't also hundreds of arcade-style games in its library, 'cause it's a huge lie.

I was also kind enough to consider all EU/JP-only DC games valid for the comparisons 'cause otherwise it would be even worse.
I also chose to ignore the fact that the peripherals support completely suck on the DC in comparison with the other consoles and mostly to the PS2. In genres like Flight and Racing sims you'll NEVER have on the DC the same sort of highly precise peripheral options that you can have on the PS2, for an example.

Like I said, preference is one thing and everyone is entitled to his own. Just don't come saying shit about a whole platform or console library based on two or three games 'cause that's overly ridiculous.

Bottino
01-13-2014, 02:32 PM
I see that my obviously biased and light-hearted opinion was taken way too seriously.

Barone
01-13-2014, 02:52 PM
I just don't see anything wrong in providing a reality check for stuff like that.
Saturn and DC are usually more blindly defended in this board than the Mega Drive itself and, over the years, I developed a "problem" with that. Other consoles libraries are often entirely dismissed to praise Saturn or DC and I don't see the point.

zyrobs
01-13-2014, 03:46 PM
Shenmue 2 had a 6 million polys per second count.

Source?

stu
01-13-2014, 06:21 PM
I sense a lot of fanboysm here...

To say that you prefer the DC library over any other given console is one thing... Maybe a very Sega passionate opinion, but still valid as an opinion.


OTOH, to state that the DC library is better than N64, GC and Xbox combined is totally absurd or just a confession of your ignorance about the other consoles libraries.
Some genres are practically not covered in the DC library, to begin with. Some others have like a half-dozen games with only one or two being actually good/great...
DC's library highlights are Racing, Fighting, Action Adventure, Scrolling Shooters and maybe 3D Platformers. The rest is average-at-best.

DC vs N64:
I think the DC has the edge in terms of Racing games, despite the lower quantity. N64 has the edge in terms of futuristic racers IMO but it fails in terms of arcade and sim (big time) racing games when compared to the DC. F1 is pretty even IMO and nothing special in both.
Fighting games are worlds better on the DC and there are much more.
Action Adventure is way better on the DC.
3D platformers is a close contest but I think it's better on the N64 actually. If you like so much to claim unique/innovative games, Glover on the N64 is more unique and innovative than any DC offering in this genre. If you want to talk about limited/scripted gameplay, say "Sonic Adventure".
FPS is way better on the N64.
TPS is even, a draw. Two very good titles on both sides and a few other games.
RPG is way better on the DC.
Other genres like sports, light gun, scrolling shooters and flight games are a no-go on N64. And in terms of arcade-style games the DC does win easily.
So, uh, the DC wins by a good margin but it doesn't win in all genres and, for an example, people which love FPS games could easily prefer the N64 over the DC.

DC vs GC:
Racing is better on the DC; the better games are really great while on the GC they're mostly OK.
Fighting is better on the DC, same reason as above and also more variety on the DC.
Action Adventure is close but I think the GC wins; both have some really great titles but the GC has more variety in terms of gameplay and more quantity of good/great games.
Sports are very close GC has more different sports covered, DC has some really nice games like Virtua Tennis... I think it's a draw.
FPS is way better on the GC.
TPS is way better on the GC.
Beat'em ups are also better represented on the GC.
3D platformers are also clearly better on the GC.
RPG is very close, I think it's a draw.
Scrolling Shooters are better on the DC.
Flight games are close 'cause the only two good GC games are really good IMO but I think the DC wins due to having also very good games and more variety.
DC wins Light Gun by W.O..
Compilations are a no-go on the DC.
So, in the end, it's either a draw or a very close call in one of the sides depending on your personal preferences, but the DC library has no major advantage overall by any stretch of imagination. DC wins in the more arcadey genres, yes.

DC vs Xbox:
Racing is better on the Xbox, hands down. Its racing library is WAY more rounded than the DC and it has many very good/great racing games of all sorts.
Fighting is pretty even, DC has some more appealing titles but Xbox has some games which are sorely missing on the DC... I think it's a draw.
Action Adventure is clearly better on the Xbox IMO, some sub-genres are totally absent on the DC.
FPS is worlds better on the Xbox.
TPS is worlds better on the Xbox.
Beat'em ups are worlds better on the Xbox.
3D platformers is pretty close IMO, DC has too few games but most of the Xbox stuff is quite mediocre... I think it's a draw.
Action RPG is far better on the Xbox.
Sports games are far better on the Xbox.
"Classic" RPG is far better on the DC.
Scrolling Shooters are better on the DC.
Flight games are slightly better on the Xbox. It also has lots of other simulation games that DC lacks.
Light Gun games are far better on the DC.
Compilations are a no-go on the DC and there's plenty of good stuff on the Xbox.
So I think it's pretty clear that the Xbox library wins by a good margin. And it's a fallacy that the DC is the "last Arcade-Action console"; the Xbox library is actually stronger both in arcade conversions, Action-oriented games and Arcade-style racing games by a HUGE margin. DC still has the edge in terms of Scrolling Shooters and Light Gun games but those were never the *only* typical arcade genres.

Talking about DC vs N64+GC+Xbox in terms of library and calling the DC's better is clearly nonsense. The DC might have the edge in three small genres and the rest is all better on the combined library of the trio.



Now, it's a mindless comparison IMO but since sheath once again showed his ultimate hatred against Sony/Playstation...
DC vs PS2:
Racing is worlds better on the PS2. Some stuff like F1 and Rally games (which are very important for many racing fans) is heavily one sided in favor of the PS2.
Fighting is worlds better on the PS2. Tons more of great 2D games and the same for 3D.
Action Adventure is waaaaay better on the PS2, some sub-genres are totally absent on the DC.
FPS is worlds better on the PS2.
TPS is worlds better on the PS2.
Beat'em ups are worlds better on the PS2.
3D platformers is better on the PS2, hands down.
Whatever RPG is waaaay better on the PS2.
Scrolling Shooters are better on the PS2, several great exclusives.
Flight games are much better on the PS2.
Light Gun games are slightly better on the PS2.
Compilations are a no-go on the DC and there's tons stuff on the PS2.
...
So, uh, you must be hugely biased or totally mindless to ditch the PS2 library... You can always rise the fanboy cards of "quality rate" or "Oh, this one Sega game is better than the other 100 games in the same genre" or "When both were alive the DC had the edge in this genre" but it will never change the fact that the PS2 library is actually way more rounded, has tons more of great exclusives, tons more of arcade ports...
You may hate the hundreds of "cinema" and "atmospheric" games that the PS2 has, it's OK. Just don't imply that there aren't also hundreds of arcade-style games in its library, 'cause it's a huge lie.

I was also kind enough to consider all EU/JP-only DC games valid for the comparisons 'cause otherwise it would be even worse.
I also chose to ignore the fact that the peripherals support completely suck on the DC in comparison with the other consoles and mostly to the PS2. In genres like Flight and Racing sims you'll NEVER have on the DC the same sort of highly precise peripheral options that you can have on the PS2, for an example.

Like I said, preference is one thing and everyone is entitled to his own. Just don't come saying shit about a whole platform or console library based on two or three games 'cause that's overly ridiculous.


I just don't see anything wrong in providing a reality check for stuff like that.
Saturn and DC are usually more blindly defended in this board than the Mega Drive itself and, over the years, I developed a "problem" with that. Other consoles libraries are often entirely dismissed to praise Saturn or DC and I don't see the point.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Barone again. :(

Gogogadget
01-13-2014, 06:22 PM
-snip-

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Barone again."

HalfBit
01-13-2014, 07:17 PM
Simple. I've never seen anything that says otherwise.
Also, a few of you guys didn't realize I said shenmue 2, not shenmue 1.

HalfBit
01-13-2014, 07:18 PM
Also, yeah, I haven't ever played yakuza (sorry)

Gogogadget
01-13-2014, 07:22 PM
Yakuza has a fixed camera angle. It's a lot easier to know what is going to be seen on screen for developers.


Also, yeah, I haven't ever played yakuza (sorry)

...?

zyrobs
01-13-2014, 07:30 PM
Simple. I've never seen anything that says otherwise.

Yeah, with that reasoning the Saturn version of Shenmue was pushing 10 million polygons per second. You won't find anything that'll say otherwise.

Bottino
01-13-2014, 07:38 PM
I just don't see anything wrong in providing a reality check for stuff like that.
Saturn and DC are usually more blindly defended in this board than the Mega Drive itself and, over the years, I developed a "problem" with that. Other consoles libraries are often entirely dismissed to praise Saturn or DC and I don't see the point.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it looks like it's a felony to write an carefree opinion like mine, even with myself joking about it.

As far as i know, there's not much on those consoles that sparks my attention for them and i wouldn't trade the three of them combined for my Dreamcast; and i'm not dismissing anything , but i simply don't have the time( or money ) to own every console made by man as i can barely play the ones that i do own and enjoy the most. That's just my way of approaching things and my opinion about the Dreamcast ( which is my favorite console after the Mega Drive ).

Is it biased? Sure, but i'm not trying to be the owner of the truth here nor i'm implying that everyone has to agree with me. As i stated before, opinions are subjective and should be treated that way.

sheath
01-13-2014, 08:16 PM
I sense a lot of fanboysm here...

To say that you prefer the DC library over any other given console is one thing... Maybe a very Sega passionate opinion, but still valid as an opinion.
Xbox and Gamecube, as I have not compared their libraries with the Dreamcast and generally consider them self sufficient.


I think my statement about the Dreamcast library was a little more nuanced than "it is better, [Console Y]'s library sucks".



Now, it's a mindless comparison IMO but since sheath once again showed his ultimate hatred against Sony/Playstation...
DC vs PS2:
Racing is worlds better on the PS2. Some stuff like F1 and Rally games (which are very important for many racing fans) is heavily one sided in favor of the PS2.

In quantity, and if you have a wheel with pedals, the PS2 definitely has more quality Racers in each Racing-genre type. Daytona Online is an acquired taste, mainstreamers can't handle the default analog sensitivity. Sega GT is hit or miss with people, I enjoy it quite a bit. MSR is usually praised. F355 Challenge should be in the running for best Racing simulator of the generation, its only minus is ONE CAR type. Hydro Thunder, Speed Devils, TXR, and others were good in the same sense most racers are good. Could somebody prefer Dreamcast Racers over PS2 ones and still be a rational human being? I think so.

Maybe not if we are exclusively comparing the games with the best Racing Wheels plus Pedals for each system, the PS2 probably has more of those than I have ever seen used or talked about. I used my Interact non-force feedback wheel with pedals for a good line time but with stock controllers or third party controllers I think the Dreamcast has an edge over PS2 at least for a few years after the Dreamcast's discontinuation. Those analog triggers, and the MUCH HIGHER analog sensitivity of the Dreamcast stick, made playing Dreamcast much more simple with the stock Dreamcast gamepad than with any wheel I sampled.

The less said about the types of PS2 Racers mainstreamers exclusively talk about the better.



Fighting is worlds better on the PS2. Tons more of great 2D games and the same for 3D.

While I might argue that the Dreamcast is better for racers in some ways, it is with the rest of the genres that I have to point out, 2 years versus 11+ years of software support is an absurd comparison. I personally draw the line of comparing anything on the Dreamcast to the PS2 at the 5 year mark, when the Xbox 360 launched anyway. Even then, I have frequently compared physics and AI of F355 challenge to Forza 3, and man F355 is a freaking contender (again, just one car).

On to Fighters. Again thanks to Sony I can only speak for the US library, and thanks to the absurd popularity I can't speak for every Fighter ever released. Crap versus quality is the first thing that comes to my mind for the PS2. Emulation and compilations fill the crap category mostly, but at least most of them are considered "Arcade perfect" today right? Ugh. At least PS2 controllers didn't have lag to further sully that vaunted status. PS2 Joysticks are also plentiful and very competent.

From what I have seen only 3D Fighters were in the mainstream and retail eye during the PS2's nominal life (2000-2005). If somebody were to tell me that the PS2 received every 2D and 3D Fighter ever made in various compilations I would not doubt it. I also would not be surprised if my informant could not tell me if there were glitches in video, audio or gameplay introduced by said compilation. I would be even less surprised if two or three enthusiasts of PS2 Fighter Compilations completely failed to agree whether any version of any game was actually Arcade perfect.

I would be happy to be proven wrong, I do change my opinions. It seems like the Dreamcast is the last platform to see actual Arcade ports/adaptations of 2D Fighters before the emulation onslaught began. I can't speak much for Capcom or SNK 2D Fighters on the Dreamcast. I figured Marvel vs Capcom was a very good conversion, I liked it in the Arcades and didn't notice any different. MvC2 was designed for Naomi, so obviously it ran well on Dreamcast, but I didn't care for it as much as the first version. Street Fighter Alpha 3 and Street Fighter 3 has failed to appeal to me in any version. I think we have discussed before that Alpha 3 on Dreamcast shares the same flaws to Arcade perfection as the Jpn Saturn version (resolution, sample frequency).

For 3D Fighters, Virtua Fighter 3tb was blasted by the media, but I have never seen a concise or comprehensive comparison with the Model 3 original that proves any flaws. Multi-tiered environments, relatively accurate motion captures martial arts moves, great frame based animation, this game was well ahead of its time. Dead or Alive 2, I thought, was very good for what it was aiming at. DoA2 is better than a ton of other "me too" 3D Fighters out there to be sure. I have seen hardcore 3D Fighter fans claim that the counter system is broken, and breaks the game, but I have yet to see that happen. The counters are frame based, and high-mid-low based. From what the average gamer is expected to be capable of, this is just a step lower than what Virtua Fighter 2 and 3's counters require, which is far from easy for most.

Soul Calibur is really not all that Namco/Sony fans claim. The single player modes can be beaten by tapping weak and strong attacks while not even looking at the screen. This is NOT an exaggeration. Supposedly with two dedicated players Soul Calibur becomes much better, I just haven't seen it.

On to the PS2, Tekken Tag Tournament. I have seen TTT praised to no end, I have also never seen anybody play it for long. I have played it briefly and cannot stand it for the same reason I cannot stand the first three Tekken games. Dial a combo is an obvious sign of technical inferiority when compared to a frame based system like Dead or Alive or Virtua Fighter. Tekken hadn't grown up by the time the PS2 launched, and I haven't bothered to look at the later released sequels. I have one of them because it has the Arcade versions of Tekken 1-3 playable. The Soul Calibur games on the PS2 are just as flawed as the Dreamcast/Arcade games, but uglier and with more characters (yay).

I haven't delved much past the mainstream stuff on the PS2 though, they are the ones that stand out in the sea of PS2 releases after all. In a library that massively hugely large there must be something seriously worth playing. Powerstone, a launch Dreamcast title, has yet to be beaten for uniqueness, polish or seriously solid multi-tiered 3D Fighting.



Action Adventure is waaaaay better on the PS2, some sub-genres are totally absent on the DC.

This is the PS2's mainstay genre, stuck like a broken record in dark/noir themed games or Japanese fantasy. Agreed. My inclusion of what few similar Dreamcast games was simply to compare graphics and sound, which I find very comparable (aside from resolution, which fails the PS2 frequently).



FPS is worlds better on the PS2.

FPS sort of jumped around on consoles. Xbox basically took that generation and the next, while some console exclusives were fan favorites on other platforms. Time Splitters is a Sony fan favorite. Soldiers of Fortune, Unreal Tournament 3, Quake 3, and Outtriggers are pretty much all the Dreamcast has to offer. The Clancy games and Hidden And Dangerous are actually quite good despite their poor graphical optimizations though.



TPS is worlds better on the PS2.

This might require a thread of its own. Over the entire 11+ year PS2 library? Sure, why not. Defining "Third Person Shooter" would be necessary first. Obviously though, the PS2 has a freaking metric ton of these with various poor to okay standards for gameplay mechanics, with GTA on the extremely poor end.



Beat'em ups are worlds better on the PS2.

Defining Beat em ups is necessary before this can even be discussed. I consider the Devil May Cry and God of War games Action Adventure for example. Bouncer, Beat Down, Final Fight Street Wise, and what few other straight Beat-em ups on PS2 I can think of off hand are far inferior to Dreamcast Beat-em ups like Dynamite Cop, Zombie Revenge, or especially Shenmue's beat-em up aspects. If we are including DMC and God of War, I far prefer Soul Reaver on Dreamcast to any other version, Berserk and Drakonus to almost any modern game with similar "Zelda 3D" mechanics.

I am still trying to give God Hand a solid chance at best beat-em up ever, all I see so far is wanna-be Tarrintino garbage and quasi-Action-RPG upgrades.



3D platformers is better on the PS2, hands down.

None of the PS2's 3D platformers are anywhere near as fast, nor do they require as much controller accuracy, as the Sonic Adventure games. In quantity I agree this is a mainstay PS2 genre. Finding a game that is actually especially worth playing in that genre on the PS2 requires what I consider excessive love for cinematics, "humor" or some other theme instead of the main game itself.



Whatever RPG is waaaay better on the PS2.

If you mean to say that Grandia 2 or Skies of Arcadia are obviously inferior to any PS2 RPG, I wish you luck. jRPGs aren't my thing really, but Square-Enix RPGs were old to me after the NES days. I'd say the Xbox has a better argument for best RPGs of that generation, and they are all Bioware RPGs. Again, not really a genre I see in very high esteem. Obviously jRPGs is a big deal for the PS2 though, and I do not intend to dismiss that. My main point is, how does "series X" really negate what few jRPGs the Dreamcast saw in its artificially short life.



Scrolling Shooters are better on the PS2, several great exclusives.

Side/Vertically scrolling? Hasn't the Dreamcast been kept "alive" by these almost exclusively over the years? Did the PS2 ever get Ikaruga? Eh, I'd like to know what you mean here, but I have been tired of this genre for a very long time and don't really intend to argue the Dreamcast's overall library superiority anyway.



Flight games are much better on the PS2.

Aero Wings and Aero Wings 2 along with Airforce Delta and a couple of really bad flight games versus the entire PS2 library might fall short, I agree. For simulation I would always compare the Aero Wing games against anything of that generation at least, I even compare them to Microsoft Flight Simulator. So far I haven't found any Namco Flight game superior in anyway to Air Force Delta either. I keep trying, because I love to be hooked by this genre, but Namco's offerings just don't seem to hit that sweet spot for me. Obviously I am an absurd fanboy now, because everything Namco makes in any genre is gold.



Light Gun games are slightly better on the PS2.

There are obviously, more light gun games on PS2. Virtua Cop 2 and House of the Dead 2 are pretty much it for Dreamcast, and I wouldn't try to claim that they are better than whatever Time Crisis versions are playable on PS2.



Compilations are a no-go on the DC and there's tons stuff on the PS2.

Yep, aside from Atari and Williams stuff available on previous consoles, the Dreamcast wasn't really a compilation system, thank goodness.



...
So, uh, you must be hugely biased or totally mindless to ditch the PS2 library... You can always rise the fanboy cards of "quality rate" or "Oh, this one Sega game is better than the other 100 games in the same genre" or "When both were alive the DC had the edge in this genre" but it will never change the fact that the PS2 library is actually way more rounded, has tons more of great exclusives, tons more of arcade ports...
You may hate the hundreds of "cinema" and "atmospheric" games that the PS2 has, it's OK. Just don't imply that there aren't also hundreds of arcade-style games in its library, 'cause it's a huge lie.

I was also kind enough to consider all EU/JP-only DC games valid for the comparisons 'cause otherwise it would be even worse.
I also chose to ignore the fact that the peripherals support completely suck on the DC in comparison with the other consoles and mostly to the PS2. In genres like Flight and Racing sims you'll NEVER have on the DC the same sort of highly precise peripheral options that you can have on the PS2, for an example.


At least for the Dreamcast CDRs are readily available from all regions. ;) Ditching the PS2 library is stupid, obviously.

Generally, for me, I would prefer to go back to the Dreamcast than any other later platforms for Arcade-Action genres. That would include 3D Fighting games, Racers, and the more unique genre blenders the Dreamcast library has.



Like I said, preference is one thing and everyone is entitled to his own. Just don't come saying shit about a whole platform or console library based on two or three games 'cause that's overly ridiculous.

My only points are that the PS2 offers a distinctly different experience than the Dreamcast did in its very short life. Also, the PS2 seems to get a free pass all the time for sucking graphically because somehow it is performing better while looking like complete ass. I intend to call that out every time I am involved in the conversation. Secondly to that, the PS2 is not as strong in the same way, at least, as the Dreamcast is in its best genres. Obviously the Dreamcast doesn't have as great a representation in each genre, or as many sequels to each popular game.

Whether one finds that a significant difference will obviously depend on tastes and other things.

HalfBit
01-13-2014, 09:45 PM
Very well said. Good job.
My favorites for both:
Ps2:god of war, gta 3, psychonauts
Dc: Jet grind radio, unreal tournament, rayman 2.

HalfBit
01-13-2014, 09:47 PM
And yes, I don't have a ps2 but based on what I've heard I think I would rather play those 3.

Black_Tiger
01-13-2014, 10:13 PM
Whatever RPG is waaaay better on the PS2.
If you mean to say that Grandia 2 or Skies of Arcadia are obviously inferior to any PS2 RPG, I wish you luck. jRPGs aren't my thing really, but Square-Enix RPGs were old to me after the NES days. I'd say the Xbox has a better argument for best RPGs of that generation, and they are all Bioware RPGs. Again, not really a genre I see in very high esteem. Obviously jRPGs is a big deal for the PS2 though, and I do not intend to dismiss that. My main point is, how does "series X" really negate what few jRPGs the Dreamcast saw in its artificially short life.

What about El Dorado Gate? Is there even anything like that for PS2?

TrekkiesUnite118
01-13-2014, 10:21 PM
Sheath here's some PS2 games that were released up to 2005 (honestly 2006 would be more fair here as that's when the PS3 came out, but whatever) in each genre:


2D Fighters:
Street Fighter Anniversary Collection (Ports of Hyper Street Fighter 2 and Street Fighter 3 Third Strike)
Marvel vs Capcom 2
Capcom vs SNK 2
King of Fighters 2000
King of Fighters 2001
King of Fighters 2002
King of Fighters 2003
King of Fighters XI (if we count 2006)
Guilty Gear X
Guilty Gear XX

None of those are emulation collections, if we include those we can add a lot more to that list. And that's only the ones I know of off the top of my head, there's probably a lot more.

3D Fighters:
Soul Calibur 2
Soul Calibur 3
Virtua Fighter 4
Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution
Tekken 4
Tekken 5
Tekken Tag Tournament
Dead or Alive 2 Hardcore
Virtual On Marz
Dragonball Z Budokai 1-3 (These were surprisingly fun)

Again this is just what I know of, there's probably more. Diss Soul Calibur and Tekken all you want, they are still solid fighters with legitimate fans. It's not just Sony fans either for Soul Calibur. There's plenty of Sega, Nintendo, and Microsoft fans who will vouch for that series quality.

First Person Shooters:
Call of Duty
Call of Duty 2: Big Red One
TimeSplitters
Time Splitters 2
TimeSplitters: Future Perfect
Quake 3 Arena
Medal of Honor: Frontline
Medal of Honor: Rising Sun
Medal of Honor: European Conflict
Red Faction
Red Faction 2
007 NightFire
Half-Life
Battlefield 2: Modern Conflict
Unreal Tournament

And there's really a lot more than that. The 360 had Halo, Halo 2, and Half-Life 2 but a lot of the other games it had were on PS2 and Gamecube as well.

For Third Person Shooters:
Resident Evil Code Veronica
Resident Evil Outbreak 1 and 2
Resident Evil 4
Ratchet and Clank Series (These could also fall into 3D Platformer and Action Adventure if you ask me)
Star Wars Battlefront
Socom 1-3
Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City, and San Andreas

There's probably more for this too, this is just what I know of.

3D Platformers:
Sonic Heroes
Shadow the Hedgehog

You're whole complaint here seems to be that there's nothing like the Dreamcast Sonics, so those two should satisfy that itch should satisfy your itch. Yeah the PS2 port is the worst of the 3, but we're only talking about the PS2 here. There's a whole lot more platformers on the PS2 as well that I'm not going to go into listing.

Shmups:
DoDonPachi DaiOuJou
Gradius III and IV
Gradius V
Silpheed: The Lost Planet
R-Type Final
Raiden III
Thunder Force VI (Yeah it's outside our time window, but it's still worth mentioning if your going to bring up Dreamcast homebrew releases.)

There's a bunch of others to bring up here as well, I'm just drawing a blank from memory.

As for RPGs, it's not really about the PS2 games being better than the Dreamcast ones, it simply has to do with there being so many more of them. Grandia 2, Skies of Arcadia, Sakura Wars, etc. are all great, but the PS2 has ones that are just as good and a whole lot more of them. And that's not even looking at the Final Fantasy Series. As good as Bioware's Xbox offerings were, I feel their RPGs really hit their stride with Mass Effect.

KoTOR Is great, but it lacks in side quests and end game content that a lot of JRPGs are known for. If I remember correctly in KoTOR you will hit the level cap towards the end not because you are actually at the max amount of EXP you can gain, but because you run out of enemies to fight and none of them ever respawn. Mass Effect has this issue too if I remember correctly, but it's good at keeping plenty of enemies for you to fight right up to the end so you don't realize that the issue is there as easily. Mean while I still have plenty of side quests I can go back and do for almost all my PS2 JRPGs.

j_factor
01-14-2014, 12:38 AM
Fighting is worlds better on the PS2. Tons more of great 2D games and the same for 3D.

I don't agree with this. I feel that the Dreamcast had more worthwhile fighters that were unique to the system, like Power Stone and Tech Romancer. Those SNK compilations seem iffy on the PS2, and when I played MvC2 for PS2 it felt a bit "off" compared to the Dreamcast version. Soul Calibur 2 is very weak compared to the Gamecube or Xbox version, and I didn't care for the third one that much at all. Guilty Gear XX is outmoded by the later Wii versions, Virtual On Marz is crap, and I just can't bring myself to care about games like The Rumble Fish (yawn). I love fighters, but the only PS2 one in my collection to this day is VF4, and nothing's on my want list, either. I'm sure you'll have a list for me, but I've seriously never seen any reason to be impressed by the PS2 in this category.


FPS is worlds better on the PS2.

The controller is certainly better, but in general PS2 is mostly not worth bothering with, it's almost all very inferior ports of games that look and play better on Xbox. I guess the PS2 does have Killzone, I never got around to playing that one. Oni was rubbish though.


Beat'em ups are worlds better on the PS2.

This genre was almost completely out of favor. I'm struggling to come up with anything decent for the PS2 except for God Hand (which is great). The Bouncer was awful IMO. Dreamcast didn't have much either, but Dynamite Cop and Zombie Revenge are both quite solid. I'd call this one a draw, with neither system doing all that great.


3D platformers is better on the PS2, hands down.

I think this one really depends. The PS2 had a ton of Jak and Ratchet games. If you like those two series (and I group them together because they have a very similar feel), PS2 wins. If not, Dreamcast wins, because PS2 has little else. I did enjoy Tokobot Plus but that's about it.


Scrolling Shooters are better on the PS2, several great exclusives.

Like what? This statement honestly surprised me. I think this is the one genre that most people would say is better on DC. I love Gradius V, but Dreamcast had a lot of good stuff.


Compilations are a no-go on the DC and there's tons stuff on the PS2.

I'm not sure there's any on the PS2 that are actually worth getting. Midway Arcade Treasures, for example, was a bit borked on the PS2. Of course I haven't done in-depth comparisons of every compilation, but if it's on another system that is generally more solid (GC/Xbox/Wii), going for the PS2 version feels like a gamble. Of course, Dreamcast doesn't really have anything either.

The rest I agree with.

Barone
01-14-2014, 02:58 AM
Daytona Online is an acquired taste, mainstreamers can't handle the default analog sensitivity. Sega GT is hit or miss with people, I enjoy it quite a bit. MSR is usually praised. F355 Challenge should be in the running for best Racing simulator of the generation, its only minus is ONE CAR type. Hydro Thunder, Speed Devils, TXR, and others were good in the same sense most racers are good.
I never dismissed those games and I actually think that DC's Daytona was a very good game.


Could somebody prefer Dreamcast Racers over PS2 ones and still be a rational human being? I think so.
Of course.



Maybe not if we are exclusively comparing the games with the best Racing Wheels plus Pedals for each system, the PS2 probably has more of those than I have ever seen used or talked about. I used my Interact non-force feedback wheel with pedals for a good line time but with stock controllers or third party controllers I think the Dreamcast has an edge over PS2 at least for a few years after the Dreamcast's discontinuation. Those analog triggers, and the MUCH HIGHER analog sensitivity of the Dreamcast stick, made playing Dreamcast much more simple with the stock Dreamcast gamepad than with any wheel I sampled.
My point here would be just to remind you that, to the opposite of what you suggested in your previous post, the PS2 platform offers options to have you playing your Racing games with both force feedback and 300+ degrees of wheel rotation, just like on the arcades. THAT is something the DC does not allow you to do.
OTOH, as I've said in many other occasions, the stock/default controllers of the DC are more precise than the shitty Dual Shock 2 controllers (and the same can be said about Saturn vs PS1).



While I might argue that the Dreamcast is better for racers in some ways, it is with the rest of the genres that I have to point out, 2 years versus 11+ years of software support is an absurd comparison.
Oh, sure, of course... We're in 2014 but we MUST act like if we're stuck in 2001/2002 for the rest of our lives 'cause in that way you can provide us with a libraries comparison where you dismiss a lot of PS2 games and get a free pass for that?
It's just not happening.



I personally draw the line of comparing anything on the Dreamcast to the PS2 at the 5 year mark
That's your very own world; thankfully, we're not restricted by that 5 year mark in 2014, when this discussion is happening right now. You know about sites like gamefaqs and ebay, right?



On to Fighters.
Good.


Again thanks to Sony I can only speak for the US library, and thanks to the absurd popularity I can't speak for every Fighter ever released.
Oh, so it's all Sony's and PS2 success' fault? Cool.



Crap versus quality is the first thing that comes to my mind for the PS2.
Funny that you had just admitted that you have a limited knowledge about the PS2 to library. Go figure...



Emulation and compilations fill the crap category mostly, but at least most of them are considered "Arcade perfect" today right? Ugh. At least PS2 controllers didn't have lag to further sully that vaunted status. PS2 Joysticks are also plentiful and very competent.
Last time I checked the DC stock controllers weren't all that "magic" with Capcom fighters.

While mocking the PS2 compilations, take some time to read this:
"The Dreamcast version is the worst of all possible versions. It offers nothing over the Neo-Geo versions other than the unlockable image gallery and the arranged soundtrack mode. Inputs are delayed, Terry's stage lags the game and some versions show problems with sound effects delaying as much as 2 seconds from when they should play. Some of Terry's voice samples are also not the ones from the game, but from as early as Real Bout Fatal Fury Special. If possible, select the original soundtrack option instead of the arranged soundtrack, and play on the original GD-ROM to lessen these effects. Even with these adjustments, this is the worst option for play; even playing on an emulator will be more satisfying."

"The Japanese Playstation 2 and Xbox 360 versions are the best home console versions. The controls are very tight and the game play is perfect. On the PS2 version during play the words 'Guard Cancel' do not flash on the screen like the other versions do. On the 360 version it fixes that problem. The training mode for PS2/360 are superior to all other versions, they allow for recording and playback of the training dummy's actions. So for practicing setups and other single player training, the PS2/360 versions are the best, even better than the pure Neo-Geo versions. Another thing to take notice is that both the PS2 and 360 versions run at a faster framerate than the original arcade MVS/AES versions. Only takes a bit to adjust to the speed difference and shouldn't cause any problems when running tournaments. The online play over Xbox Live is better than previous SNK releases, but is still bad nonetheless. GGPO/Supercade/Arclive are your better options for online play. The PS2 version also contains the arranged soundtrack, while the 360 version does not (as it is based directly on the original Arcade version)."
http://wiki.shoryuken.com/Garou:_Mark_of_the_Wolves



From what I have seen only 3D Fighters were in the mainstream and retail eye during the PS2's nominal life (2000-2005).
"Nominal life"? What's that?
Maybe "the PS2's adjusted lifespan according to sheath in order to be able to compare it with the quickly unsupported Dreamcast"?



If somebody were to tell me that the PS2 received every 2D and 3D Fighter ever made in various compilations I would not doubt it. I also would not be surprised if my informant could not tell me if there were glitches in video, audio or gameplay introduced by said compilation. I would be even less surprised if two or three enthusiasts of PS2 Fighter Compilations completely failed to agree whether any version of any game was actually Arcade perfect.
You once again show off all your lack of knowledge about the PS2 library.



I would be happy to be proven wrong, I do change my opinions.
I see...



It seems like the Dreamcast is the last platform to see actual Arcade ports/adaptations of 2D Fighters before the emulation onslaught began.
That's not true. At all.
Companies want to make money as easy and quick as possible, and it wasn't a religious dogma which kept them from doing the "emulation onslaught" earlier but the lack of CPU resources in the previous gens... Even so, several compilations of the 5th gen era (including the sacred Sega Saturn) were already emulated sets of ROMs; "coincidentally" the ones from the older/less powerful arcade boards and consoles.
Oh, but I still need to prove you wrong about the DC being "the last platform to see actual Arcade ports/adaptations of 2D Fighters". Here we go:
Capcom vs SNK 2
Guilty Gear X
Guilty Gear X2
Guilty Gear XX Slash
Guilty Gear XX #Reload
Guilty Gear XX Accent Core
Guilty Gear XX Accent Core Plus
Marvel vs Capcom 2
NeoGeo Battle Coliseum
The King of Fighters 2000
The King of Fighters 2001
The King of Fighters 2002
The King of Fighters 2002 Unlimited Match
The King of Fighters 2003
The King of Fighters XI

None of those games are emulated AFAIK. And there are more...



I can't speak much for Capcom or SNK 2D Fighters on the Dreamcast.
I hope Sony hasn't something to do with it...



I figured Marvel vs Capcom was a very good conversion, I liked it in the Arcades and didn't notice any different. MvC2 was designed for Naomi, so obviously it ran well on Dreamcast, but I didn't care for it as much as the first version.
Both games are great and excellent on the DC.



Street Fighter Alpha 3 and Street Fighter 3 has failed to appeal to me in any version. I think we have discussed before that Alpha 3 on Dreamcast shares the same flaws to Arcade perfection as the Jpn Saturn version (resolution, sample frequency).
The DC version is usually far more criticized for its V-ISM timing issues and supposedly altered hit boxes.



For 3D Fighters, Virtua Fighter 3tb was blasted by the media, but I have never seen a concise or comprehensive comparison with the Model 3 original that proves any flaws.
"The DC version was a rush job by Genki, the makers of the Shotokou Battle games. The graphics are somewhat like the arcade version but for a real poor stage port just check out the desert stage :nod:"
"the island stage is also unlike the arcade one if I remember correctly."
"In its Model 3 guise, VF3 not only used quadratic polygons but no texture mapping for the character models, which instead got their details purely through shader and lighting effects. To my knowledge, nobody has ever produced a side-by-side comparison of VF3tb, although I've heard many times of limb joints being comromised the most as a result of Genki's decision to lower the polygon count and utilise textures - even though Sega claimed in advance of the Dreamcast's release that it could easily match and even out-perform Model 3. Backgrounds in the console version are similarly poor, with several of the levels receiving a major overhaul. A few other criminal mistakes include the frame rate briefly dropping before opening rounds (when the camera zooms in) and shadows that would flicker and even break up when layered over uneven floor surfaces, much like the problem that plagued all 3D in the Saturn conversion of Virtua Fighter."
http://www.assemblergames.com/forums/showthread.php?14426-Virtua-Fighter-3-Arcade-Vs-DC




Tekken hadn't grown up by the time the PS2 launched, and I haven't bothered to look at the later released sequels.
I played Tekken 6 the other day with a friend of mine on a Xbox 360... ahahah, boy, is it broken.
Characters are unbalanced as hell and most of the moves animations are very similar if not identical to the ones found in PS1's Tekken 3. No, I'm not kidding...
You have all those "amazing looking" backgrounds filled with explosion and waterfalls but the gameplay itself is pretty shallow, repetitive, unbalanced and broken IMO.



I haven't delved much past the mainstream stuff on the PS2 though, they are the ones that stand out in the sea of PS2 releases after all. In a library that massively hugely large there must be something seriously worth playing.
Being a Sega fan and having advocated the mediocre VF3tb port, it surprises me that you didn't mention VF4 Evo for the PS2:
sZgIGMC2XeU

Out of the "PS2 sea":
BZMsxbE_S0A
4Z4Zt1I6GRY
JgqUE42lRxA



This might require a thread of its own. Over the entire 11+ year PS2 library?
What's the problem? Are we living in 2014 or 2001?


Defining "Third Person Shooter" would be necessary first.
Oh, that's another stubborn excuse to avoid a direct comparison...
I usually use the categorization provided by gamefaqs. As bad and flawed as it is, it's surely better than having to circle jerk wasting days in forum discussions trying to find a "consensus" about the definition while having people like ABF in the game.
Here are the lists for reference (feel free to start a new thread to discuss genre definitions, I just think it's a pointless and useless discussion for the most part; besides being boring as hell):
http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/list-80
http://www.gamefaqs.com/dreamcast/list-80



Obviously though, the PS2 has a freaking metric ton of these with various poor to okay standards for gameplay mechanics, with GTA on the extremely poor end.
Yeah, we all know that having lots of games to choose from is always a bad thing and automatically turns all great games in that library equally mediocre...



Defining Beat em ups is necessary before this can even be discussed.
Oh, sure... Geez...
Here are the lists for reference:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/dreamcast/list-160
http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/list-160



I consider the Devil May Cry and God of War games Action Adventure for example.
Gamefaqs too! Yay! Can we avoid the weeks of nonsense genre definition discussions then?



Bouncer, Beat Down, Final Fight Street Wise, and what few other straight Beat-em ups on PS2 I can think of off hand are far inferior to Dreamcast Beat-em ups like Dynamite Cop, Zombie Revenge, or especially Shenmue's beat-em up aspects.
By which stretch of imagination would you include Shenmue in this discussion?
Oh, let's compare the fighting segments of the RPGs with games like, uh, Virtua Fighter 3tb... What about that?

Seriously now, Dynamite Cop and Zombie Revenge are nothing special IMO; though you managed to list a pretty bad selection of PS2 Beat'em Ups.
I'd take The Warriors over them, easily. You'd still have stuff like Berserk, Sengoku Basara 2 Heroes, Warriors Orochi 2 or Gauntlet: Dark Legacy or God Hand. And others...
-U__zn9D7V4
ldn9G4nRIuw



I am still trying to give God Hand a solid chance at best beat-em up ever, all I see so far is wanna-be Tarrintino garbage and quasi-Action-RPG upgrades.
I'm amazed how fast and easily you can trash the games which are not in the DC side.



None of the PS2's 3D platformers are anywhere near as fast, nor do they require as much controller accuracy, as the Sonic Adventure games.
Oh, of course... I suppose that the parts with scripted cinematic jumps in Sonic Adventure don't bother you at all since it's all Sega goodness.
I also suppose you have played each and every PS2 3D platformer to be able to claim that.



In quantity I agree this is a mainstay PS2 genre.
Oh, your traditional quantity tag! HIII!



Finding a game that is actually especially worth playing in that genre on the PS2 requires what I consider excessive love for cinematics, "humor" or some other theme instead of the main game itself.
Yeah, all of them absolutely suck:
bfXMEyFMRYQ
95VtKaYxnwI
toEOfsv9Qbc
iKHjUe6jNhk
tAz6Uer7CJc



If you mean to say that Grandia 2 or Skies of Arcadia are obviously inferior to any PS2 RPG
No, no... If you pay attention, the beginning of the line was always used to name the genre. I just meant to say "be it Action RPG, Console-style RPG, ...".



Side/Vertically scrolling? Hasn't the Dreamcast been kept "alive" by these almost exclusively over the years?
And???


Did the PS2 ever get Ikaruga?
Humm, Ikaruga is the *only* great and must have shooter of that gen...
What about DoDonPachi Dai-Ou-Jou, Gradius V, Ibara, Espgaluda, Mushihimesama, R-Type Final, Raiden III...? Did they get a port to the Dreamcast?




Aero Wings and Aero Wings 2 along with Airforce Delta and a couple of really bad flight games versus the entire PS2 library might fall short, I agree. For simulation I would always compare the Aero Wing games against anything of that generation at least, I even compare them to Microsoft Flight Simulator. So far I haven't found any Namco Flight game superior in anyway to Air Force Delta either. I keep trying, because I love to be hooked by this genre, but Namco's offerings just don't seem to hit that sweet spot for me. Obviously I am an absurd fanboy now, because everything Namco makes in any genre is gold.
Or you're absurdly biased just caused you seem to hate anything Namco. And anything Sony. And anything Playstation.
Or it's just all very funny since AirForce Delta is nothing but an Ace Combat clone and the third game in the series is actually available on the PS2.
Too bad that Iron Aces isn't a patch for Secret Weapons Over Normandy though...



There are obviously, more light gun games on PS2. Virtua Cop 2 and House of the Dead 2 are pretty much it for Dreamcast, and I wouldn't try to claim that they are better than whatever Time Crisis versions are playable on PS2.
Namco, yeah, they suck. And Sony platforms are just Namco games after all...



Yep, aside from Atari and Williams stuff available on previous consoles, the Dreamcast wasn't really a compilation system, thank goodness.
Yeah, it sucks to have these options available:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ab443/arcade_games.htm




At least for the Dreamcast CDRs are readily available from all regions. ;)
Missing music tracks and other stuff at times, right? Good.



Generally, for me, I would prefer to go back to the Dreamcast than any other later platforms for Arcade-Action genres. That would include 3D Fighting games, Racers, and the more unique genre blenders the Dreamcast library has.
I'm anxious to see you listing those "more unique genre blenders the Dreamcast library has".



My only points are that the PS2 offers a distinctly different experience than the Dreamcast did in its very short life.
The experience that you get from a console depends on the selection of games you have in your personal collection from the whole library.
In such aspect, I fail to see how the DC can offer me such a not-on-the-PS2 experience. OTOH, I can easily see that the Dreamcast wouldn't be able to offer all the experiences available in the immense and rounded PS2 library.



Also, the PS2 seems to get a free pass all the time for sucking graphically because somehow it is performing better while looking like complete ass. I intend to call that out every time I am involved in the conversation.
I'm pretty sure you have called that out every time since I became a member of this forum.
Also, in this very thread others have already pointed to the PS2 blurry/bad graphics in many games.


Secondly to that, the PS2 is not as strong in the same way, at least, as the Dreamcast is in its best genres.
I'd love to see you giving us some actual examples and being able to support your claims given that you say you don't know the PS2 library very well.



@j_factor
My only point in this discussion was to provide a wider perspective than the "PS2 library is all crap, DC's all awesome" that sheath seemed to be promoting once again and that Bottino kinda brought up when he stated that DC library was better than the N64, GC and Xbox libraries combined.

My DC vs PS2 comparison is just a comparison between the two systems libraries. Of course, and usually, the games which were released both for the PS2 and the Xbox were better on the later; mostly for the sake of its superior hardware AFAIK.
But since sheath called out the DC and PS2 libraries comparison, dismissing the later (as he usually does and did again in his reply) I found that it was necessary to go a bit deeper and try at least to analyze the major genres, comparing one platform against the other.

About the compilations, I also find that most of them are actually bad or mediocre.
But I think that Namco Museum: 50th Anniversary and Street Fighter Anniversary Collection are well worth getting. Namco Museum: 50th Anniversary for all the games available in the same package and Street Fighter Anniversary Collection for the accuracy and extras.
The same criticism we have against most of those compilations can be had against the GC and Xbox versions in a minor extend but still with the PC or more recent Xbox 360 ones having more accurate and solid versions.
Also, as a side note, don't forget that Atari Anniversary Edition on the DC is nothing but emulated ROMs, featuring less games than the PS1 version and lacking the TATE option that some of those games had in previous compilations for the 5th gen consoles. Just like the PS2 compilations we're criticizing...
I hope to have addressed your other questions in my last reply to sheath.

Barone
01-14-2014, 04:24 AM
Have updated and fixed some stuff.
There's also some interesting discussing regarding fighting games here:
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?105641-Fighters-on-Dreamcast-vs-PS2

Splatterhouse5
01-14-2014, 05:29 AM
I see that my obviously biased and light-hearted opinion was taken way too seriously.

Hehe...I took the comment as light-hearted, but it did instantly make me weigh my preferences on each library. I started thinking "which of these libraries would I rather be stuck with?". I can squeeze a lot of fun out of all of those libraries, but if I HAD to pick one (out of DC, XB, N64, and GC), the original Xbox would get my vote.

This topic is making me want to play Psychonauts, Crimson Skies, and SW:KOTOR again.

j_factor
01-14-2014, 06:36 AM
@j_factor
My only point in this discussion was to provide a wider perspective than the "PS2 library is all crap, DC's all awesome" that sheath seemed to be promoting once again and that Bottino kinda brought up when he stated that DC library was better than the N64, GC and Xbox libraries combined.

Yeah, I don't find myself agreeing with sheath or Bottino here. :/


My DC vs PS2 comparison is just a comparison between the two systems libraries. Of course, and usually, the games which were released both for the PS2 and the Xbox were better on the later; mostly for the sake of its superior hardware AFAIK.
But since sheath called out the DC and PS2 libraries comparison, dismissing the later (as he usually does and did again in his reply) I found that it was necessary to go a bit deeper and try at least to analyze the major genres, comparing one platform against the other.

I don't think the PS2 library should be dismissed. But I do think that one can prefer the Dreamcast library overall for legitimate reasons, and not just pro-Sega and/or anti-Sony bias.


About the compilations, I also find that most of them are actually bad or mediocre.
But I think that Namco Museum: 50th Anniversary and Street Fighter Anniversary Collection are well worth getting. Namco Museum: 50th Anniversary for all the games available in the same package and Street Fighter Anniversary Collection for the accuracy and extras.
The same criticism we have against most of those compilations can be had against the GC and Xbox versions in a minor extend but still with the PC or more recent Xbox 360 ones having more accurate and solid versions.

I have Namco 50th for the Gamecube. I honestly haven't played it a ton, but it seems pretty solid. But I can't help but wonder if it would be better to just ignore the 50th Anniversary version in favor of the individual volumes for PSX. SF Anniversary I haven't played, but I'm somewhat curious about. "Hyper" SF2 sounds kind of weird...


Also, as a side note, don't forget that Atari Anniversary Edition on the DC is nothing but emulated ROMs, featuring less games than the PS1 version and lacking the TATE option that some of those games had in previous compilations for the 5th gen consoles. Just like the PS2 compilations we're criticizing...

Atari Anniversary has the same number of games on PSX and DC, just two of them are different. They both have 12 games. Doesn't matter though, all of the above are included on Atari Anthology for PS2/Xbox along with others. I'm not really that interested in any version of this compilation. The only thing I want to see is if there's some way, with any version, to play Crystal Castles with a trackball. I can't find any confirmation one way or the other, but I think the answer is probably no. It would be a lot of work and expense to find out for sure.

Barone
01-14-2014, 11:15 AM
I don't think the PS2 library should be dismissed. But I do think that one can prefer the Dreamcast library overall for legitimate reasons, and not just pro-Sega and/or anti-Sony bias.
Of course. I've said it here before.
The cleaner graphics, the VGA output and/or exclusive games/best versions of games are all very good reasons to do so.



I have Namco 50th for the Gamecube. I honestly haven't played it a ton, but it seems pretty solid. But I can't help but wonder if it would be better to just ignore the 50th Anniversary version in favor of the individual volumes for PSX.
If you have a TATE setup, the PS1 versions are definitely the way to go. I also think that the PS1 versions run in the same resolution or in a closer one to the original arcade games (it can be preferred if you have a SD CRT TV). I also don't know about proper peripheral support in some old games. I really doubt that you'll find more precise analog support for the Poli Position games in any other platform or paddle controller support to those old breakout-esque games.



Atari Anniversary has the same number of games on PSX and DC, just two of them are different. They both have 12 games.
Oh, sorry for that. I messed up when I wrote it...
The different games available in the DC version are already available in other PS1 Atari compilations. The different ones available in the PS1 version aren't available for the DC.



Doesn't matter though, all of the above are included on Atari Anthology for PS2/Xbox along with others. I'm not really that interested in any version of this compilation. The only thing I want to see is if there's some way, with any version, to play Crystal Castles with a trackball. I can't find any confirmation one way or the other, but I think the answer is probably no. It would be a lot of work and expense to find out for sure.
You can definitely play Crystal Castles using the Nyko track-ball (yes, it's a proper analog mode since it uses the mouse protocol) if you have the Midway Presents Arcade's Greatest Hits: The Atari Collection 2 for the PS1 (http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps/197939-midway-presents-arcades-greatest-hits-the-atari).
Again, if you have a TATE setup or use a SD CRT TV or have the Playstation Analog Joystick or have the Paddle/Volume controllers, the PS1 compilations will bring you closer to the arcade experience than the more recent collections. The Atari Anniversary Collection Redux doesn't have TATE support though.

sheath
01-14-2014, 12:13 PM
Is this the quote that got me two walls of flame from a buddy?


Given that since the N64 launched most games are in the same genres, and the Dreamcast hit on all of them quite nicely, I don't think it is necessarily a fanboy position to prefer the Dreamcast library. God of War is nothing new, at all, it isn't even a particularly well playing game. The only thing the Dreamcast lacks is five versions of every game with a different subtitle. I generally prefer the originals in any given series, with rare exception.

Then there are the thematic differences in the libraries of the PS2 or the Dreamcast, which I find much more difficult to define. I would say the Dreamcast is the last Arcade-Action console, and the PS2 is the first mainstream/core console. The former emphasized challenge and gameplay, the later emphasized cinematic quality and whatever theme was popular that year (usually dark/noir urban violence).

I think this, and a sub paragraph where I trash God of War in comparison to Legacy of Kain Defiance were my only comments about the PS2's library. That is a far cry from "Dreamcast is magic, PS2 Suxxors." My comparisons up until these walls of "flame the strawman fanboy" aimed at me were comparing the graphics as the OP says. My tone was directly in reaction to "PS2 is much more stronger, Dreamcast couldn't have kept up anyway." I was actually just having fun with it until now.

PS2 wins because it has more games in every genre and more sequels in every series, and there is nothing degrading about sifting through 100 games to find 10 that are great, the end. Also, to my five year point, which gets flamed every time I bring it up, I was not saying I would not consider later games. I was just being open about the fact that I stopped looking at the PS2 after the Xbox 360 came out. Aside from a couple of multiplatform games I just haven't seen much on the PS2 since then. I haven't seen the Japanese library AT ALL, and that actually is Sony's fault.

My reasoning for keeping direct game comparisons, especially graphical comparisons, within five years of each other is not some knee jerk fanboy reaction bent on keeping the losing system in the comparison. You won't even see me disallow a comparison because of it coming out too much later. I simply will not tend to make those comparisons for what I consider very good reasons. I wouldn't compare Revenge of Shinobi to Shinobi III and make any conclusions about the hardware based on Revenge of Shinobi's performance. I wouldn't compare Ridge Racer to RR Type 4 and make conclusions about the hardware based on Ridge Racer 1. That is essentially what Sony fans are doing when they put Yakuza 2 up against Shenmue 2. I find it a flawed comparison, the more realistic comparison is Grand Theft Auto 3 versus Shenmue 2. But if people want to compare games that many years apart while assuming that the Dreamcast game is maxing out the system in every way I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

On the Fighting games, I thought I chose my words carefully enough but apparently not. The PS2 wins hands down in quantity, and the persistence of Emulation in the compilations is a point against in my mind. Please stop running my statements to the absurd, I do not dismiss games because they are piled in with mediocre titles. PS2 rules for SNK? Fine, I trust you to make that unilateral assertion. For Capcom? Sure, although I will still enjoy Powerstone more.

On Antaemia's VF3tb comparison, for one thing the shadows were fixed for the US release. -edit- It looks like they break up because they don't appear on the sides of stairs just the tops. I don't know what he is talking about for the Desert Stage or Island Stage. Keep in mind this is the same guy who wrote dissertations about the Saturn version of VF3 prototype being near Arcade perfect.

@0:27 and 0:51

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buuDqbouIJE

@ 0:50 (he doesn't turn the camera to the same part as the video above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPOX_B3wQDk

@ 6:00 and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iK17Hn2emE

I already compared Dead or Alive 2, really I find it fine on both systems, the Jpn version of the Dreamcast game has all of Hardcore's extras. I prefer Dead or Alive 2 over Dead or Alive 1, 3 or 4 and I haven't played the latest one. That must make me an Xbox hater too. I bought and still own Virtua Fighter 4 and Evo, they are in no way as graphically impressive as the Naomi 2 Arcade original even though AM2 said they would have "no problem" with the PS2. The textures are ultra low detail and color, the aliasing is EVERYWHERE, the background models look like toys and some parts of the characters look like they are non-textured lit polygons with celephane wrapped around them. Free pass for Sony's "polygon monster"? Sure why not.

My Namco hatred must be seriously selective as I like Ace Combat 3 when I couldn't stand Air Combat or Ace Combat 1 or 4 (PS2). I don't like Namco's Racers, but I'd play Splatter House, Rolling Thunder 2, StarBlade (any, even PS1) and Cybersled over their more popular mainstream titles any day. I also can't get into Air Force Delta Storm on Xbox for some reason. I'm not even saying that Air Force Delta on Dreamcast is a better game, just that I can't put it down when I start playing. The Aero Wings games are better simulators though.

Genre Blenders: (This list is not an invitation to further denegrate me for have an opinion, and in no way negates unique PS2 games)
Powerstone (True 3D Fighting, Platforming)
Sonic Adventure (3D Platforming, 3D Adventure, Rail Shooter, 3D Shooter)
Sonic Adventure 2 (3D Platforming, 3D Adventure, 3D Shooter)
Armada (Overhead Shooter, RPG)
Seventh Cross Evolution (RPG, Life Simulator?)
Toy Commander (Arcade Flight/Sea Missions, Puzzles, Play as Toys in a house)
Draconus Cult of the Wyrm (Action, 3D Fighting, RPG, Fantasy Story Based)
Ecco the Dolphin DoF (2D/3D Adventure, Under Water Exploration, Puzzles)
Jet Grind Radio (3D Skating/Tricks/Stunts, Memory Games for Tagging)
MDK2 (Third Person Shooter, Puzzles/Inventions)
Omikron The Nomad Soul (Futuristic City Simulator, RPG)
Powerstone 2 (3D Fighter, Platformer, Party Game)
Red Dog Superior Firepower (Third Person Vehicle Shooter, Puzzles, Exploration, Weapons Upgrades)
Samba De Amigo (Music Game, Marracas)
Shenmue (3D City Simulator, Beat-em Up RPG)
Shenmue 2 (3D City Simulator, Beat-em Up RPG)
Seaman (Life Simulator, AI)
Typing of the Dead (Keyboard Shooter)
Virtual On Oratario Tangram (Arena Fighter, Third Person Shooter, 3D Fighting)
Ooga Booga (True 3D Fighter, Arena Fighter)

Arcade - Action Games:
Dynamite Cop
Expendable
House of the Dead 2
Incoming
Pen Pen Tricelon
Power Stone
Psychic Force 2012
Cannon Spike
Virtual On Oratario Tangram
Zombie Revenge
Charge N Blast
Death Crimson OX
Outtrigger

Now I will reiterate my perception of the thematic differences of the Dreamcast and PS2 libraries. I think the Dreamcast was the last console to emphasize Arcade Action titles as a main selling point of its library, and the PS2 is the first modern "Core/Mainstream" console.

The Jackal
01-14-2014, 05:17 PM
It is, except for the bit where the PS2 controller has 10 buttons whilst the Dreamcast has only 4 face buttons + 2 analog triggers, and only 1 analog stick where as when the PS2 took off games requiring more than one analog stick became commonplace.

The Dreamcast is a good console, but it died before it's generation really took off and the other consoles have far too many games for me to even put the Dreamcast anywhere near the other consoles libraries.

That wasn't what I was getting at. Of course Sony had the advantage there - I'm sure Sega would of put out a revised pad some where down the line ala the 6 button MD one; who really knows though.

I was talking more of a personal preference - I like the shape of the PS2 pad for instance, but I can't stand the sticks or dpad. The Dreamcast's, for me, were much better.

Black_Tiger
01-14-2014, 05:45 PM
The stock DC pad worked fine for 3D games for me, even after being spoiled by the Saturn 3D pad.

Since Saturn-to-DC pad adapters were cheap, easy to find (at EB), fully compatible and available long before the system was discontinued, 2D DC games played as well as possible.

Bottino
01-14-2014, 05:54 PM
The stock DC pad worked fine for 3D games for me, even after being spoiled by the Saturn 3D pad.

Since Saturn-to-DC pad adapters were cheap, easy to find (at EB), fully compatible and available long before the system was discontinued, 2D DC games played as well as possible.

There's also this choice,
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7WPpGwoPD6Q/TixUHW7z-vI/AAAAAAAAAG8/GoItuIa5n-s/s1600/madcatz.jpg


which works really well for me, although the d-pad takes a while to get used to.

Gogogadget
01-14-2014, 06:48 PM
That wasn't what I was getting at. Of course Sony had the advantage there - I'm sure Sega would of put out a revised pad some where down the line ala the 6 button MD one; who really knows though.

I was talking more of a personal preference - I like the shape of the PS2 pad for instance, but I can't stand the sticks or dpad. The Dreamcast's, for me, were much better.

Yeah, the Playstation D-Pad has always been kinda ass, and Sega may of revised the Dreamcast controller but on quite a few occasions I found that it wasn't quite up to the task.

Chilly Willy
01-14-2014, 07:10 PM
There's also this choice,
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7WPpGwoPD6Q/TixUHW7z-vI/AAAAAAAAAG8/GoItuIa5n-s/s1600/madcatz.jpg


which works really well for me, although the d-pad takes a while to get used to.

I've got several of these. It's a nice controller, and I like the extra buttons. I don't know why everyone switched to four buttons when fighting games NEED six.

Obviously
01-14-2014, 07:21 PM
I really love that pad. Works great for fighters if you're not an arcade stick person.

Gogogadget
01-14-2014, 07:25 PM
I've got several of these. It's a nice controller, and I like the extra buttons. I don't know why everyone switched to four buttons when fighting games NEED six.

Because it's just one, very niche genre amongst an absolute ton of other genres really.

HalfBit
01-14-2014, 07:26 PM
I actually don't like the dual shock much, it cramps my hands. The Dreamcast pad, for me, was a really nice controller. It helps that even without a second analog most games control fine. I'm sure sega would have eventually released a 2-analog controller.

o.pwuaioc
01-14-2014, 07:58 PM
I actually don't like the dual shock much, it cramps my hands. The Dreamcast pad, for me, was a really nice controller. It helps that even without a second analog most games control fine. I'm sure sega would have eventually released a 2-analog controller.
I thought I was the only one who complained about the dual shock's cramped feeling.

sheath
01-14-2014, 07:58 PM
I figure Sega super simplified the Dreamcast controller because people found their games too complicated and they wanted to be more user friendly. Also, the SNES and PS1 were more successful and only had four face buttons. That diamond design basically became cannon for all future game controllers after the SNES and PS1, there was no challenging it. What I don't get is why all gamepads have to have complete garbage for D-Pads, what is so hard about a responsive D-Pad?

Anyway, whoever said they think the Dreamcast pad is more responsive, it is. I've used it in Pinacle Game Profiler and it has virtually no dead zone and a lot more sensitivity compared to either the Dual Shock 2 or Xbox 360 Analog Sticks which have anywhere from 10-15% "deadzone." If you try to set Pinacle below that expect the character to randomly run in circles or not stop walking or the camera to spin when you aren't touching the stick. No such thing happens with the Dreamcast Analog stick. Mainstream media reviewers consistently complained about certain games on the Dreamcast having a "problem" with being to sensitive in the analog stick, the game was actually using the Dreamcast analog stick.

Black_Tiger
01-14-2014, 09:02 PM
I've got several of these. It's a nice controller, and I like the extra buttons. I don't know why everyone switched to four buttons when fighting games NEED six.

Because 3D gaming took over during the decline of 2D fighters/street fighting in general, and 3D fighters typically don't use six buttons.

My friend and I bought that pad and both broke down pretty quick. And that wasn't for 2D control fighting games either (we used Saturn pads for that).

TrekkiesUnite118
01-14-2014, 09:39 PM
Is this the quote that got me two walls of flame from a buddy?

No, it was this one where you pretty much said everything on the PS2 is shit compared to the Dreamcast:

http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?26634-Ps2-vs-Dreamcast-graphics&p=633231&viewfull=1#post633231




Now I will reiterate my perception of the thematic differences of the Dreamcast and PS2 libraries. I think the Dreamcast was the last console to emphasize Arcade Action titles as a main selling point of its library, and the PS2 is the first modern "Core/Mainstream" console.

And the point you are missing is that the PS2 has a pretty heavy focus on Arcade Action titles too. The PS2 has enough of everything in it's library to essentially make any genre a main selling point.

And I'd say both the Gamecube and the Wii have a strong emphasis on Arcade and Action titles:

h24m7WsqoOQ

R1f_jjyJ93Q

XexCNEpGdpY

vf4T8uhwjwM

lQiAEeFwXac

AUHQKWNa2AA

X5wCrCaVHiU

lS6fJHsvqiU

CyLG6-QVMEs

Iqe_aFiEISA

23dyIQSEf3U

0yIHhGA9HpI

Honestly, I'd say the Gamecube is the Dreamcast's spiritual successor, and a similar argument could be made for the Wii as well.

Wesker
01-14-2014, 09:54 PM
I just don't see anything wrong in providing a reality check for stuff like that.
Saturn and DC are usually more blindly defended in this board than the Mega Drive itself and, over the years, I developed a "problem" with that. Other consoles libraries are often entirely dismissed to praise Saturn or DC and I don't see the point.

Fanboyism aside, what could be wrong with a console that totalizes around 1200 games? The Sega Saturn is no Dreamcast, that one is clearly a different beast with a larger and better library overall. It even has more games than the Mega Drive (it's the Sega console with the biggest game library after all), although I wouldn't say it's better in that particular case.

I say the Sega Saturn is the one which is usually overlooked and disregarded by most people because they don't even know everything the console gathered outside of its flop in the western markets. A similar case to the PC-Engine.

Obviously
01-14-2014, 10:05 PM
I thought I was the only one who complained about the dual shock's cramped feeling.

You're definitely not. It never felt comfortable in my hands either. I hated that the basic form-factor of it lasted so long.


I say the Sega Saturn is the one which is usually overlooked and disregarded by most people because they don't even know everything the console gathered outside of its flop in the western markets. A similar case to the PC-Engine.

That's the gist of it, as the western point of view is what most of the posters here have

It's unfortunate but at least people who are more into the hobby generally know better.

zyrobs
01-14-2014, 10:55 PM
I've got several of these. It's a nice controller, and I like the extra buttons. I don't know why everyone switched to four buttons when fighting games NEED six.

You can't do a PPP or KKK move with 6 face buttons unless you map them to hotkeys.
With 4 face buttons and 2 shoulder buttons, you can. As awkward as it is.

j_factor
01-14-2014, 11:48 PM
You can't do a PPP or KKK move with 6 face buttons unless you map them to hotkeys.
With 4 face buttons and 2 shoulder buttons, you can. As awkward as it is.

Say what? I think it's the opposite. Zangief and T. Hawk's PPP moves are easy to pull off on the Saturn controller. I always have a hard time on any four-face-button controller.

Splatterhouse5
01-15-2014, 02:50 AM
I actually don't like the dual shock much, it cramps my hands. The Dreamcast pad, for me, was a really nice controller. It helps that even without a second analog most games control fine. I'm sure sega would have eventually released a 2-analog controller.

It was the opposite for me. I didnt have a problem adjusting to the dual shock, and it felt comfortable to me through the gen. I also didnt have a problem using the D-pad that some here appear to have had; fighters played well, and felt comfortable, for me with that d-pad The Dreamcast pad is actually the last one that I have used that would really do a number on my fingers, and I didnt particularly like the triggers much. Using it nowadays, particularly to play FPSs, TPSs, or platformers (Toy Commander also comes to mind), just feels off without that second analogue stick. It didnt bother me BITD, but now it makes me wish it was there. Fighters still play well on the pad, but those buttons really make my fingers ache in a way that I havent felt since the NES pad.

The 360 pad is probably the most comfortable I have used, but the d-pad drives me nuts on it. I have actually avoided fighters on the system because of that d-pad, and use the left analogue stick for movement for the ones I have played. I love the Soul Calibur and Virtua Fighter series', but I cant bring myself to get them on the 360 with the knowledge that I will hate playing them with the analogue stick, and the d-pad will make them borderline unplayable for me. The SSX reboot was completely frustrating for me to play because I had gotten used to playing them (on the PS2) with the d-pad. I play Pac-Man Championship Ed DX, and brawlers on Xbox live, using the left analogue when I would rather use the d-pad. It is unfortunate, because everything else about the pad feels fantastic to me.

zyrobs
01-15-2014, 08:36 AM
Say what? I think it's the opposite. Zangief and T. Hawk's PPP moves are easy to pull off on the Saturn controller. I always have a hard time on any four-face-button controller.

You can't push 3 face buttons simultaneously with your thumb, unless you twist your hand which is slow and uncomfortable. Or you have the attacks mapped to XAB - YZC (or some similar setup) instead of ABC XYZ. Or you hold the right side of the pad inverted, thumb on the back side and three fingers on the face buttons - which is not how it is intended to be used.

On modern controllers you just press two face buttons with your thumb plus one of the upper shift/trigger buttons with your index or middle finger.

I prefer playing Capcom fighters with the 6 face button layout as well but it's not better in every way; you need to map PPP and KKK to the l/r shifts on the Saturn for example.

sheath
01-15-2014, 09:53 AM
So the difference in favor of a diamond four button with bumpers and the Saturn pad is you use a bumper and two face buttons for PPP KKK or use use a shoulder button for PPP and another for KKK? What do you map the missing punch and kick button to, one of the analog sticks or second bumpers? Man, I never liked not having all three punches and kicks lined up in fighters that have that. I would also rather just press one button for super moves rather than try to press three, especially if I had to combine triggers with face buttons simultaneously.


It was the opposite for me. I didnt have a problem adjusting to the dual shock, and it felt comfortable to me through the gen. I also didnt have a problem using the D-pad that some here appear to have had; fighters played well, and felt comfortable, for me with that d-pad The Dreamcast pad is actually the last one that I have used that would really do a number on my fingers, and I didnt particularly like the triggers much. Using it nowadays, particularly to play FPSs, TPSs, or platformers (Toy Commander also comes to mind), just feels off without that second analogue stick. It didnt bother me BITD, but now it makes me wish it was there. Fighters still play well on the pad, but those buttons really make my fingers ache in a way that I havent felt since the NES pad.

I still configure FPS to aim with the left stick because of Dreamcast shooters, well and all game system's prior having a Left D-pad and not a right one. It always annoys me that modern games flip flop on what is "inverted" and what is "normal" from what actually is normal with a stick, flight controls. I have actually refused to play some FPS for not letting me move the aim stick to the left stick and control motion with the right. Also, I find using the four face buttons for movement on a Dreamcast pad totally equal to movement with a second analog stick in FPS. The unicycle physics and mouse/kb origins of FPS gameplay makes movement with digital buttons almost more normal than analog movement. It is the same as using AWSD, or actually the arrow keys on a keyboard and a left handed mouse. My most played Dreamcast FPS is Hidden and Dangerous for it's awesome realism and required strategy, it uses the D-Pad for shift options and works quite well once you get used to it.

I really do think the second analog stick became a cheap way for developers to not have to work on their AI camera as much, requiring the player to manage it instead.



The 360 pad is probably the most comfortable I have used, but the d-pad drives me nuts on it. I have actually avoided fighters on the system because of that d-pad, and use the left analogue stick for movement for the ones I have played. I love the Soul Calibur and Virtua Fighter series', but I cant bring myself to get them on the 360 with the knowledge that I will hate playing them with the analogue stick, and the d-pad will make them borderline unplayable for me. The SSX reboot was completely frustrating for me to play because I had gotten used to playing them (on the PS2) with the d-pad. I play Pac-Man Championship Ed DX, and brawlers on Xbox live, using the left analogue when I would rather use the d-pad. It is unfortunate, because everything else about the pad feels fantastic to me.

The new 360 pad with the "transforming" D-Pad is about as good as pads get without 6 face buttons. When I got my 360 I prioritized getting two Hori USB joysticks for it as well, they work for PC/MAME too. Since I got the new gamepad I have actually used it in Virtua Fighter 2 & 5 but I still couldn't do Akira's counters reliably. I was about two years out of practice though and always found those challenging aside from the high counters.

Black_Tiger
01-15-2014, 10:36 AM
So a PS2 vs DC graphics thread has already devolved to "street fighter II button layouts suck for playing street fighter II"?

Obviously
01-15-2014, 10:44 AM
So a PS2 vs DC graphics thread has already devolved to "street fighter II button layouts suck for playing street fighter II"?

The sad fate of all Sega-16 threads is an eventual argument about Street Fighter II.

Yharnamresident
01-15-2014, 02:00 PM
XexCNEpGdpY



God... all those good ships, yet he still uses the piece of crap Blue Falcon.

zyrobs
01-15-2014, 04:59 PM
So the difference in favor of a diamond four button with bumpers and the Saturn pad is you use a bumper and two face buttons for PPP KKK or use use a shoulder button for PPP and another for KKK? What do you map the missing punch and kick button to, one of the analog sticks or second bumpers? Man, I never liked not having all three punches and kicks lined up in fighters that have that. I would also rather just press one button for super moves rather than try to press three, especially if I had to combine triggers with face buttons simultaneously.

On the Saturn pad I map punches to ABC, kicks to XYZ, and the shoulder buttons depending on the game. If the game uses 3xP or 3xK moves often (like SF Zero 2, where its the only way to do lvl3 supers), then I use those on the shoulder buttons. On games that don't need it, I use them as taunt buttons.

On x360/ps etc, you have two punch and two kick on the abxy face buttons, and the other two attacks are on any of the shoulder triggers. Since you push those with another finger, you can do a PPP move by pressing, say, A, B, and the right shoulder button together.
I keep confusing HP and HK when they are on the shoulder buttons of the same side, though. Dunno why.


So a PS2 vs DC graphics thread has already devolved to "street fighter II button layouts suck for playing street fighter II"?

The SF2 button layout is meant to be used on an arcade pad where you can use all 5 fingers to press the buttons.
On a console controller you can only use your thumbs on the face buttons. Much less ideal.

Yharnamresident
01-15-2014, 05:06 PM
Alright semi on-topic, what downgrades would it take to get F-Zero GX on PS2 and Dreamcast?

For PS2:
-make the textures lower-res
-decrease polygon counts on ships and tracks, some of the background objects could go entirely
-audio clipping will be necessary when the game requires more than 48 audio channels

For Dreamcast:
-you could probably keep most of the texture detail, maybe keep reusing some of the textures to help save low main RAM
-decrease polygon counts all-around
-not sure how 16:9 would work, as the Dreamcast can't go higher than 640x480. But I dunno if the GameCube version is actually 854x480, basically not sure how they got 16:9 to work in general

zyrobs
01-15-2014, 05:10 PM
-not sure how 16:9 would work, as the Dreamcast can't go higher than 640x480. But I dunno if the GameCube version is actually 854x480, basically not sure how they got 16:9 to work in general

Either anamorphic or letterboxed, but it would work fine.

Yharnamresident
01-15-2014, 05:29 PM
I understand letterboxing, but I can't figure out that first one.

Chilly Willy
01-15-2014, 07:19 PM
I understand letterboxing, but I can't figure out that first one.

Anamorphic is just rendering the 854x480 into a 640x480 area, so it looks squished. It's up to the TV to stretch that back out into 854x480. By the way, GC widescreen is anamorphic. All it outputs for NTSC or PAL is 640 wide. The TV stretches that out to the proper widescreen resolution.

As to the number of face buttons, the more buttons, the better, regardless of the genre. That was an issue in making Doom for the Dreamcast - I had to make some shift mappings to get a decent layout given only four face buttons. Six is about as many buttons as you can use for the area given on a controller. You can organize them in different ways: take the N64 controller - it has six face buttons, but they organized it as two triggers, and one extra directional pad. Sony and MS could organize a 6-button pad as the normal four buttons, along with two extras.

Silanda
01-15-2014, 07:23 PM
I understand letterboxing, but I can't figure out that first one.

You know how a 4:3 picture looks stretched horizontally on a widescreen display if it is being shown on the entire screen? Basically that is what happens: a 16:9 ration image is horizontally squished into a 4:3 resolution, so when the display stretches it to wide screen it looks correct.

j_factor
01-15-2014, 11:23 PM
You can't push 3 face buttons simultaneously with your thumb, unless you twist your hand which is slow and uncomfortable. Or you have the attacks mapped to XAB - YZC (or some similar setup) instead of ABC XYZ. Or you hold the right side of the pad inverted, thumb on the back side and three fingers on the face buttons - which is not how it is intended to be used.

You're supposed to use your fingers. That's why Capcom made these:

http://puu.sh/6muCO.jpg


On modern controllers you just press two face buttons with your thumb plus one of the upper shift/trigger buttons with your index or middle finger.

I can never pull off X+Y+L. It's awful.

sheath
01-15-2014, 11:32 PM
Alright semi on-topic, what downgrades would it take to get F-Zero GX on PS2 and Dreamcast?

For PS2:
-make the textures lower-res
-decrease polygon counts on ships and tracks, some of the background objects could go entirely
-audio clipping will be necessary when the game requires more than 48 audio channels

For Dreamcast:
-you could probably keep most of the texture detail, maybe keep reusing some of the textures to help save low main RAM
-decrease polygon counts all-around
-not sure how 16:9 would work, as the Dreamcast can't go higher than 640x480. But I dunno if the GameCube version is actually 854x480, basically not sure how they got 16:9 to work in general

I'm not sure why F-Zero GX would need to have any polygon models reduced in a Dreamcast version. If properly programmed the textures shouldn't suffer too much on the PS2 either. Of course a typical Sega version on the PS2 would have just had the textures chopped down, and if it was a port from Gamecube it would have suffered in the framerate area too.

Seriously though, F-Zero GX is awesome and all, but I wouldn't call it a technical marvel.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43xKYCTNEWA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifYc8ufgex8

Yharnamresident
01-16-2014, 12:31 AM
sheath common man, if it lags on the GameCube, then it will need some serious downgrades on the PS2 and Dreamcast.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-16-2014, 12:40 AM
I'm not sure why F-Zero GX would need to have any polygon models reduced in a Dreamcast version. If properly programmed the textures shouldn't suffer too much on the PS2 either. Of course a typical Sega version on the PS2 would have just had the textures chopped down, and if it was a port from Gamecube it would have suffered in the framerate area too.

Seriously though, F-Zero GX is awesome and all, but I wouldn't call it a technical marvel.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43xKYCTNEWA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifYc8ufgex8

It's more of a technical marvel than Dreamcast Daytona if you want to make that comparison. F-Zero GX has a faster sense of speed and has a lot more special effects going on (Bloom, fire, explosions, etc.) while still running at widescreen 480p at 60fps. It also has a lot more trackside details than Daytona USA does. And it does all this without compromising texture quality or the number of racers on the track.

sheath
01-16-2014, 01:09 AM
sheath common man, if it lags on the GameCube, then it will need some serious downgrades on the PS2 and Dreamcast.

I'm sorry, has the Gamecube suddenly become some super advanced hardware for its generation? Last I checked all three platforms with actual modern Graphics Chips were not so far off from one another (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?22176-Comparison-of-6th-generation-game-console-hardware&p=565243&viewfull=1#post565243). Unless somebody has actually produced polygon counts for 6th generation games since then smoke and mirrors is all we can see.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-16-2014, 01:58 AM
I'm sorry, has the Gamecube suddenly become some super advanced hardware for its generation? Last I checked all three platforms with actual modern Graphics Chips were not so far off from one another (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?22176-Comparison-of-6th-generation-game-console-hardware&p=565243&viewfull=1#post565243). Unless somebody has actually produced polygon counts for 6th generation games since then smoke and mirrors is all we can see.

The Gamecube was the 2nd most powerful system of it's Generation sheath. Only the Xbox is more powerful. The Gamecube simply doesn't get to show it's power in a lot of third party ports because they are typically PS2 ports.

It's not just the polygon counts that matter here sheath. The Gamecube has more memory than the Dreamcast and the PS2, and it has nicer effects available to it than either the Dreamcast or PS2 have thanks to a more advanced GPU. Now that's not to say the PS2 and Dreamcast couldn't handle gamecube ports, but there would have to be sacrifices.

One affect I'd say the Gamecube really excelled at was Water effects. That was one effect it always did that impressed me. Usually you saw water effects go all out on big name titles. Twilight Princess, PSO Episode 2, etc. are all excellent examples of this effect:

WqpamxWy5PE

Skip to around the 40 minute mark and you should see the effect. I don't think I've ever seen anything like that on the PS2 or Dreamcast. In fact I don't even think the Xbox version had that effect, as Blue Burst doesn't have it and Blue Burst is based on the Xbox port.

Typically though the Xbox is even more advanced and it really shows in stuff that was built with it in mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=std9wKplilE

The Xbox version looks pretty close to the 360 version, the 360 version is just in 720p vs 480p.

Yharnamresident
01-16-2014, 02:13 AM
We should bring up the Resident Evil 4 comparison, butchered in every aspect.

Splatterhouse5
01-16-2014, 02:44 AM
We should bring up the Resident Evil 4 comparison, butchered in every aspect.

What's funny about this is that the PS2 version of RE4 is the only one I've ever played, and I thought it was awesome. When people say "butchered", I do wonder how much more I could have possibly enjoyed the game had I played it on the GC instead. I suppose I'm not the kind of gamer that would notice much of a difference between Crazy Taxi on the DC or the PS2, which is why I usually chuckle when I see heated arguments over the differences - Most of it is pretty much lost on me.

Team Andromeda
01-16-2014, 05:48 AM
We should bring up the Resident Evil 4 comparison, butchered in every aspect.

It's hardly butchered and any game that's been custom developed for a console for 4 years with 4 engines re-writes to get the best of that console will tend to lose out when ported to other consoles . It quite remarkable RE 4 looked as good as it did on the PS2 given the Cube shipped some 2 years latter. Look at some of the custom developed PS2 games on other consoles MGS 2 is a bit of joke on the XBox

Some really impressive polygons handling was seen in the likes of Demon Choas, Zone Of the Enders 2 and Hitman 2 on the PS2 . PS2 was quite impressive for polygons and particle effects give it was made in 2000


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44KZ0neSz7E






I'm sorry, has the Gamecube suddenly become some super advanced hardware for its generation

It was pretty advanced chipset that could some serious lovely graphics anyone who's played Star Wars RS II, RE 4, Star Fox Adv, Prime could see that

Barone
01-16-2014, 07:36 AM
Is this the quote that got me two walls of flame from a buddy?
Of course not.
Let's have a look at some of your own claims in this thread:

By the time the PS2 "took off" with actual software that needed Dual Analog sticks, it was for games with shoddy AI cameras that forced the player to play Actor and Director.

If the PS2 hadn't lasted ten freaking years it would be remembered as a DVD player first, a PS1 second and a PS2 player third.

The only thing the Dreamcast lacks is five versions of every game with a different subtitle.

I would say the Dreamcast is the last Arcade-Action console, and the PS2 is the first mainstream/core console. The former emphasized challenge and gameplay, the later emphasized cinematic quality and whatever theme was popular that year (usually dark/noir urban violence).

God of War is scripted throughout, so it is too bad that there isn't a Dreamcast game that amps up the polygon counts through eliminating gameplay like that.

The less said about the types of PS2 Racers mainstreamers exclusively talk about the better.

Emulation and compilations fill the crap category mostly, but at least most of them are considered "Arcade perfect" today right? Ugh.

At least PS2 controllers didn't have lag to further sully that vaunted status. PS2 Joysticks are also plentiful and very competent.

Obviously though, the PS2 has a freaking metric ton of these with various poor to okay standards for gameplay mechanics, with GTA on the extremely poor end.

Also, the PS2 seems to get a free pass all the time for sucking graphically because somehow it is performing better while looking like complete ass.
Did you really think that all of us would agree with those claims? Didn't you expect some criticism?
Don't you think that some of those quotes are filled with sarcasm and irony?
'Cause I think some of those claims are hard to support, especially when you don't provide examples.
And, of course, I'm far from being the most friendly and lighthearted guy is this board, quite the opposite. :p

Also, it wasn't two walls of flame. First, there was a comparison wall with a few lines of criticism regarding the stuff you and Bottino had posted; and I think some other guys, at least partially, agreed with my points.
The second reply was more meaningful, yes, but your reply to my comparison and critics also wasn't a "walk in the park". All in all, I don't see much of personal insults or stuff like that in those posts (mine and yours). I also managed to find some good info in this discussion and while preparing my replies; so it wasn't all just a waste of time IMO.




I wouldn't compare Revenge of Shinobi to Shinobi III and make any conclusions about the hardware based on Revenge of Shinobi's performance. I wouldn't compare Ridge Racer to RR Type 4 and make conclusions about the hardware based on Ridge Racer 1. That is essentially what Sony fans are doing when they put Yakuza 2 up against Shenmue 2. I find it a flawed comparison, the more realistic comparison is Grand Theft Auto 3 versus Shenmue 2. But if people want to compare games that many years apart while assuming that the Dreamcast game is maxing out the system in every way I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
I agree with this. And that's why I was comparing which library offered in each genre without talking about technical achievements at all.



The PS2 wins hands down in quantity, and the persistence of Emulation in the compilations is a point against in my mind.
I also dislike emulation and it's a sad point about all those compilations, especially when we are talking about easy-to-emulate-elsewhere games and the emulation offered is pretty poor and inaccurate.
However, I think we shouldn't ignore that some people actually prefer arcade ROMs well emulated over adaptations coming from very different hardware. If you check places like Shoryuken Forums, you'll see that people have compiled lists of accurately emulated arcade games 'cause in their opinion that's a good way to have the exact gameplay of the arcade versions without having to spends lots of money on arcade boards or taking the illegal route. They also usually point to tournaments which use the more accurately emulated compilations instead of arcade-to-console adaptations.
Of course, as any minded human being, they prefer stuff like NAOMI-to-DC ports over emulated compilations but we all know that it's not always possible when we're talking about arcades and consoles.

Also, like I pointed in my previous reply, not all PS2 compilations and ports are inferior to the DC ports; that's a bad assumption to make. To not repeat my previous examples, most of the KOF games are actually better on the PS2 than on the DC.




On Antaemia's VF3tb comparison, for one thing the shadows were fixed for the US release. -edit- It looks like they break up because they don't appear on the sides of stairs just the tops.
There's also some noticeable polygon break up in the characters body... Pay attention to Wolf's body around 0:52 in CGR video you posted (http://youtu.be/iPOX_B3wQDk?t=52s). That sort of stuff doesn't occur in the arcade version.



I don't know what he is talking about for the Desert Stage or Island Stage.
The lighting is far inferior in the Island Stage in the DC version. The water animation also is clearly simplified and the level of detail reduced (this DC video is bit less blurry IMO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4vNEwUBDIo).
The Desert Stage seems to be using less polygons for the "mountains" and the lighting is also simplified. It's hard to judge the texture quality by blurry videos but it also looked to be less detailed than the arcade.


Keep in mind this is the same guy who wrote dissertations about the Saturn version of VF3 prototype being near Arcade perfect.
I know these forums are filled with lunatics but this isn't a presidential run.



I already compared Dead or Alive 2, really I find it fine on both systems, the Jpn version of the Dreamcast game has all of Hardcore's extras.
The JP release of DOA2 Hardcore on the PS2 has a few more extras, nothing really special though.



I bought and still own Virtua Fighter 4 and Evo, they are in no way as graphically impressive as the Naomi 2 Arcade original even though AM2 said they would have "no problem" with the PS2. The textures are ultra low detail and color, the aliasing is EVERYWHERE, the background models look like toys and some parts of the characters look like they are non-textured lit polygons with celephane wrapped around them. Free pass for Sony's "polygon monster"? Sure why not.
Here comes your exaggerated negative claims about whatever related to the PS2...
I don't see any "ultra low" detailed textures. I see that the floor textures are lower quality when compared to the arcade but the character ones are good, a noticeable step up from the ones in Virtua Fighter 3tb on the Dreamcast (which are actually poor IMO). The stages are surely far more detailed than in Virtua Fighter 3tb, as the lighting is also far better. And the colors are far better than on the Dreamcast game, for sure. Oh, and without any noticeable polygon break up.

sheath's "ahead of its time".
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/35243-virtua-fighter-3tb-dreamcast-screenshot-attract-3s.jpg

sheath's "ultra low detail and color"
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/292635-virtua-fighter-4-evolution-playstation-2-screenshot-every.jpg


sheath's "ahead of its time".
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/35245-virtua-fighter-3tb-dreamcast-screenshot-in-game-1s.jpg

sheath's "ultra low detail and color"
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/292642-virtua-fighter-4-evolution-playstation-2-screenshot-wolf-sets.jpg


sheath's "ahead of its time".
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/35250-virtua-fighter-3tb-dreamcast-screenshot-1st-person-perspectives.jpg

sheath's "ultra low detail and color"
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/292632-virtua-fighter-4-evolution-playstation-2-screenshot-akira.jpg




Genre Blenders:
Good list, thanks.



Arcade - Action Games:
Dynamite Cop
Expendable
House of the Dead 2
Incoming
Pen Pen Tricelon
Power Stone
Psychic Force 2012
Cannon Spike
Virtual On Oratario Tangram
Zombie Revenge
Charge N Blast
Death Crimson OX
Outtrigger
I'd have expected more from the "last Arcade-Action console".





I really do think the second analog stick became a cheap way for developers to not have to work on their AI camera as much, requiring the player to manage it instead.
This is a cheap way to dismiss the undeniable advantages of a second analog stick.
Every minded gamer knows that for FPS and TPS it's very useful. How are you supposed to have analog movement and analog aiming on the DC controller? Any thoughts?
Analog triggers are undeniably better/more precise/more comfort/more responsive for tasks like analog brake and gas in racing games.

Both have there very necessary uses and that's why the latest analog controllers usually have both dual analog sticks and analog triggers. ;)

Gogogadget
01-16-2014, 08:08 AM
Never mind that also as a game, VF4 pisses all over VF3

Barone
01-16-2014, 09:13 AM
Never mind that also as a game, VF4 pisses all over VF3
VF3tb == Arcade classic.
VF4 Evo == Mainstream cinematic crap.

Don't you get it???




I'm not sure why F-Zero GX would need to have any polygon models reduced in a Dreamcast version. If properly programmed the textures shouldn't suffer too much on the PS2 either. Of course a typical Sega version on the PS2 would have just had the textures chopped down, and if it was a port from Gamecube it would have suffered in the framerate area too.

Seriously though, F-Zero GX is awesome and all, but I wouldn't call it a technical marvel.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43xKYCTNEWA


GC's shitty quality video
Why not give a fair chance to the GC game using a video with HD support?

TGyr2spCWYU

Oh, wow, now I can see the mind-blowing multi-layered tracks, the far superior track textures, the far superior lighting effects, the impressive transparencies, the bump mapping, the very complex, detailed and animated backgrounds... Cool!!!
DC's Daytona USA is definitely not in the same league.

sheath
01-16-2014, 10:55 AM
I think the Character Models in VF4 are the only thing they managed to somewhat preserve from the Arcade version, but they lost a lot of texture detail even in the characters. There were screenshots floating around at the time of the Naomi 2 version and the textures on Gi tops had practically HD detail to the threads, the PS2 versions are smooth aside from the aliasing which is visible in the screenshots above. The texture mapping is poor and either low resolution or low color I can't decide which. Most of the good detail I can see is made from the lighting and polygon models, which again I will say are good and better/much higher polygon count than VF3tb on Dreamcast for the most part.


http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/sites/default/files/VFevo/VF3067.jpg

http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/sites/default/files/VFevo/VF4039.jpg

http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/sites/default/files/VFevo/VF3069.jpg

http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/sites/default/files/VFevo/VF4040.jpg

• Jeffry (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c002.htm)
• Sarah (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c003.htm)
• Kage (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c004.htm)
• Pai (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c005.htm)
• Wolf (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c006.htm)
• Lau (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c007.htm)
• Akira (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c008.htm)
• Dural (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c009.htm)
• Aoi (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c011.htm)
• Shun (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c010.htm)
• Lion (http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/VF3c012.htm)

I was being cheeky with my anti-PS2 statements above. Just addressing the ones in bold, third person shooters on the PS2 are definitely hit and miss, especially the sandbox games. God of War DOES eliminate the gameplay and replaces it with QTEs for the money shots in the boss fights. If calling the PS2 the first mainstream/core consoles and most of its games story based games that lean more on their themes than their gameplay is an exaggeration I don't see how.

I can see an absurd interpretation of that statement being a fairly harsh critique, but I am actually just trying to describe most of the library and most of the games people were actually buying for the system around here. It doesn't even mean that, say, Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia or Devil May Cry have bad gameplay, I just means that they absolutely fill the player's time up with cinematics and setting and those are the main attraction.

I could say the same about the Legacy of Kain games and most Zelda 64 clones actually. Games that balance gameplay with storytelling and setting better are few and far between, the Batman Arkham games do it handily though and even have numerous challenge modes for the stealth and fighting gameplay. You could actually play an Arkham game in the challenge modes almost exclusively and never see the main game after beating it. That is what I am talking about with PS2 games being less about Action gameplay and more about other things.

Good find with the HD F-Zero GX video. I'm still not seeing anything that makes me think it would have to be clearly and obviously cut down on the Dreacmast side. I think Daytona 2001 is a good example of the Dreamcast doing something comparable with 20 cars on screen and a solid framerate, can't remember if it is 60FPS or 30FPS though. In F-Zero-GX most of the off track scenery looks pretty simple to me, Daytona has castles and all other kinds of roadside scenery too. I don't think a Dreamcast version would have to look like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIOdaI47LFM

or This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmMtVDy_KMk

Or even This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1EonWK0RI

Which is where I am pretty sure whoever was coming from when he said the Dreamcast game would have to be toned down in the polygon department. The only spec I know for F-Zero GX is 60FPS and 30 relatively low detail sled things on track, and as you mentioned trackside and under the track detail and sharp textures on the tracks.

stu
01-16-2014, 11:54 AM
Of course not.
Let's have a look at some of your own claims in this thread:
<snip>



Oh man still can't rep you :(

I particularly agree with you regarding sheath's criticisms of the God of War games, I accept that parts of the games are "scripted" (they're actually called QTEs, but whatever) but IIRC the mighty Shenmue also has a fair few QTEs as well but yet I never see any complaints regarding Shenmue. I've played through both God of War I and II and finished both games, played it through on the standard difficulty level, I consider both games to be in the the beat em up genre, but with some puzzle elements as well.
I thoroughly enjoyed both games and have enjoyed many other PS2 games but I guess enjoying PS2 games and Playstation games in general, well that just makes me a "mainstreamer" lol :lol:

The other comment/criticism that sheath made that I think needs further clairification is this one:


The less said about the types of PS2 Racers mainstreamers exclusively talk about the better.

Just what racing games is sheath referring to? My personal favorite of that gen was probably the Burnout series of games (my favorite one is actually Burnout: Revenge, but they are all fun to play) the car handling was competent enough to make the game fun to play without getting too technical (imo) and I found the game challenging enough considering it had a large number of levels etc. The graphics on the PS2 are also pretty good (probably not as good as either the Xbox or GC versions, but they were detailed and I didn't notice any slowdown etc) I'm curious to know what are these "mainstreamer racing games" that are so worthless that they should not be discussed. I'm pretty sure that I'm about to get my 2nd "mainstreamer" brand again ..lol.

Final comment is this on whole "mainstreamer" BS that I keep reading, I seem to recall that 20 odd years ago the Genesis was moderately popular (understatement intended) and was at the time a console frequented by "mainstreamers" (aka video game fans) and I know there were lots of sequels and "mainstream games" on there too, I don't hear anyone complaining about "oh no look at those mainstream Genesis games", but since its cool to bash the Playstation I guess that is a completely irrelevant point.

Rant over..

The Jackal
01-16-2014, 12:34 PM
What's funny about this is that the PS2 version of RE4 is the only one I've ever played, and I thought it was awesome. When people say "butchered", I do wonder how much more I could have possibly enjoyed the game had I played it on the GC instead. I suppose I'm not the kind of gamer that would notice much of a difference between Crazy Taxi on the DC or the PS2, which is why I usually chuckle when I see heated arguments over the differences - Most of it is pretty much lost on me.

The PS2 version was playable and still looks good, that's all I care about.

Gogogadget
01-16-2014, 01:11 PM
Butchered is a bad word, the cutscenes have been changed from in-engine to FMV and the graphics are well... worse, but the game arrived pretty much intact and i'm pretty sure it has a few extras over the GC version.

sheath
01-16-2014, 02:35 PM
Resident Evil 4 had the textures lowered in color and resolution, and the shadows removed, though I'm fairly certain that the shadows in the GC version were just texture work.

Examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzFomhlF6wA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIs2Q8RBAio


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfkcHkRoAk8

In response to Stu, I would level the exact same observations Sony fans take as an offense at the Genesis library after 1991. Mostly sequels and licensed games dominated the library rather than Arcade Adaptations and unique Action games from then on, once the Mainstream came in. I personally seriously lost interest in the Genesis library from late 1992 on and focused more on Sega CD and 32X games, and exclusive SNES games I wished I had like Star Fox, Sim City, Act Raiser, Super Double Dragon and Super Mario Kart.

If one of you wants to try to argue that the PS2 was considered, marketed by ANY company as, or its library otherwise mandates, an Action - Arcade gaming console by all means prove me wrong. To Barone's earlier comment about the Dreamcast having fewer games than he would expect on my list, I am pretty sure you realized I didn't list any scrolling spaceship shooters or 2D/3D Fighters. Would that amount to a number of games greater than the ever living PS2? Obviously not, but percentage of library and more importantly shelf space and marketing for these games was higher for the Dreamcast than they ever were for the PS2.

Am I trashing the PS2, saying it sucks and nobody should play God of War because of this? Please everybody take a deep breath and realize how silly that interpretation is. The PS2 is a fricking game console not a holy relic, and I would say it has garnered far more appreciation and promotion from fans than any console needs. I simply question its poor graphics in basically every game thanks to aliasing and low detail or palatalized textures and most of the games made for it obviously were not targeting me.

j_factor
01-16-2014, 04:17 PM
These Virtua Fighter comparisons are retarded.

sheath
01-16-2014, 04:47 PM
These Virtua Fighter comparisons are retarded.

You don't think a same generation comparison of games in the same series from two different platforms is appropriate? I'm not sure who brought it up first, but apparently VF3tb on Dreamcast is entirely bad for not being Arcade perfect but the PS2 game is awesome and unquestionable. That has been the frame for any Virtua Fighter Comparison on 6th Gen consoles since VF4 PS2 came out.

Seriously nasty Aliasing? Nah, it's normal to us now. Nondescript "texture" blobs? You're crazy stupid. Which game plays better? The one with the most modes of course. Which game has multi-tiered environments instead of flat rings with deforming snow/sand occasionally breaking it up? Doesn't even matter, stupid question. Gotcha, I am teh sacrilege.

For a graphical comparison though, I'd show Dead or Alive 2 (no not Soul Calibur) and Virtua Fighter 4:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsoSNAD7f-E

Not sure if my computer doesn't like this one but the image quality is correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLG_MQvWKWo

A little better speed, but still Youtube fuzzy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hy2UhQT4Sg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA44zVWlvsE

Evo is a bit better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLg3gu4F6BE

Yep, those are 480p max videos because the likelihood of somebody not using emulation or a cruddy upscaler with 720p or above is very very high. The PS2 games look better, if a little fuzzier, than they actually do on an SD-TV with S-Video thanks to Youtube's cruddy compression. I still see Aliasing first, and nothing specifically detailed to look at second, except for maybe a face in a closeup or a tree or monument (singular) per stage.

Bottino
01-16-2014, 05:01 PM
You don't think a same generation comparison of games in the same series from two different platforms is appropriate? I'm not sure who brought it up first, but apparently VF3tb on Dreamcast is entirely bad for not being Arcade perfect but the PS2 game is awesome and unquestionable. That has been the frame for any Virtua Fighter Comparison on 6th Gen consoles since VF4 PS2 came out.

Seriously nasty Aliasing? Nah, it's normal to us now. Nondescript "texture" blobs? You're crazy stupid. Which game plays better? The one with the most modes of course. Which game has multi-tiered environments instead of flat rings with deforming snow/sand occasionally breaking it up? Doesn't even matter, stupid question. Gotcha, I am teh sacrilege.

http://i.imgur.com/4klIqiz.jpg

j_factor
01-16-2014, 05:04 PM
You don't think a same generation comparison of games in the same series from two different platforms is appropriate?

Not necessarily, and certainly not in this instance. Do you think Virtua Fighter 3 (arcade) is comparable to Virtua Fighter 4 (arcade)?


I'm not sure who brought it up first, but apparently VF3tb on Dreamcast is entirely bad for not being Arcade perfect but the PS2 game is awesome and unquestionable. That has been the frame for any Virtua Fighter Comparison on 6th Gen consoles since VF4 PS2 came out.

They are both flawed conversions in different ways. The thing is, VF3 is an older and less technically demanding game, from older arcade hardware. The Model 3 is two years older than the Dreamcast, whereas the Naomi 2 debuted the same year as the PS2. With this in mind, one would have higher expectations of the Dreamcast's ability to handle a conversion of VF3, than the PS2's ability to handle a conversion of VF4. That the DC port of VF3 came up short was and is disappointing, though understandable considering the very short development time it had.

sheath
01-16-2014, 05:25 PM
Not necessarily, and certainly not in this instance. Do you think Virtua Fighter 3 (arcade) is comparable to Virtua Fighter 4 (arcade)?

I have never seen a VF4 Arcade cabinet in person, otherwise I think I might be even harder on the PS2 game than I already am. I will say I like some of the PS2 version's gameplay changes and the Arcade tournament mode. Aside from that, gameplay wise, I can play Virtua Fighter 3tb on Dreamcast in exactly the same way I play VF4 or Evo on PS2, but the Dreamcast game has more interesting arenas. I was also disappointed with Virtua Fighter 5 sticking to flat rings with little background detail to compliment that.

I think I have played VF3tb on Dreamcast, VF4 and Evo on PS2 and Virtua Fighter 5 on Xbox 360 for about the same amount of time and I don't consider any of them significantly "better" in the gameplay department. VF5 added movesets that would have been in the place of the player messing up a move in earlier versions. That screams "accessibility" to me and I have to re-read a massive move and combo list for ONE character just to get back into it. VF4's main innovations were the walk around mechanic, which is functionally no different in practice than VF3's dodge button, and the extra modes and costumes (which VF5 continued). Virtua Fighter 3tb added, from VF2, multi-tiered environments, the dodge button, some moves and some characters (also added by VF4 and VF5), and took away the floaty jumps.

For a 3D Fighter I tend to appreciate the little things like actual stages to fight in, and the first addition of facial detail including eye movement. Compared to Soul Calibur or Tekken Tag Tournament, or VF4 and Tekken 4-5 on PS2 I really don't consider VF3tb's engine all that dated. For a launch game it certainly showed the system's potential to port difficult and incompatible (quads in this case) games to the Dreamcast. I was honestly hoping for a followup in 2000.



They are both flawed conversions in different ways. The thing is, VF3 is an older and less technically demanding game, from older arcade hardware. The Model 3 is two years older than the Dreamcast, whereas the Naomi 2 debuted the same year as the PS2. With this in mind, one would have higher expectations of the Dreamcast's ability to handle a conversion of VF3, than the PS2's ability to handle a conversion of VF4. That the DC port of VF3 came up short was and is disappointing, though understandable considering the very short development time it had.

VF4 gets solid praise across the board and is a flawed Arcade conversion with an additional features menu. VF3 gets trashed for being, probably, 90+% accurate to the Model 3 game. What really gets my goat is people claiming Virtual On Oratario Tangram wasn't a GREAT conversion, just because you need twinsticks for less than a handful of rarely useful super moves to be easier. VF3 being "bad" when Soul Calibur gets praised for having an upped resolution and better textures than the Arcade version just really makes me wonder why I bother with these conversations.

HalfBit
01-16-2014, 07:21 PM
Well said, sheath. I don't really care that much about virtua fighter because I prefer games like sf3 and power stone.
But, that said, I think the virtua fighter series is probably dead. So.....is the arcade perfect vf3tb good? Well, yes, I think if you like that kind of stuff than its a fine game. Vf4 Evo seems like more of a generic fighter running off its legacy to me, at vf3 games like power stone and soul caliber were out and vf3tb seemed less special. But on ps2 it wasn't nearly as good because of other games simply being better. Sorry for fans of the series...I just don't really like it. :p

TrekkiesUnite118
01-16-2014, 08:16 PM
Good find with the HD F-Zero GX video. I'm still not seeing anything that makes me think it would have to be clearly and obviously cut down on the Dreacmast side. I think Daytona 2001 is a good example of the Dreamcast doing something comparable with 20 cars on screen and a solid framerate, can't remember if it is 60FPS or 30FPS though. In F-Zero-GX most of the off track scenery looks pretty simple to me, Daytona has castles and all other kinds of roadside scenery too. I don't think a Dreamcast version would have to look like this:

Which is where I am pretty sure whoever was coming from when he said the Dreamcast game would have to be toned down in the polygon department. The only spec I know for F-Zero GX is 60FPS and 30 relatively low detail sled things on track, and as you mentioned trackside and under the track detail and sharp textures on the tracks.

It's not just the polygon counts that would be the issue. It's all the lighting and transparency effects going on. I don't think I've ever seen a Dreamcast game that does bloom effects like F-Zero GX does. And I'm pretty sure the game does push more polygons in the trackside detail.

Does anyone here have Dolphin with a ripped copy of F-Zero GX to confirm through debug info how many polygons the game pushes?


though I'm fairly certain that the shadows in the GC version were just texture work.


Or maybe, just maybe, the Gamecube's more modern GPU can do more advanced lighting and shadow effects than the Dreamcast and PS2.


VF4 gets solid praise across the board and is a flawed Arcade conversion with an additional features menu. VF3 gets trashed for being, probably, 90+% accurate to the Model 3 game.

When Sega was saying that the Dreamcast could handle Arcade Perfect ports of Model 3 games, it is a bit of a big deal. Of the ones it got I think only Virtual On is the closest to 100% accurate. Virtua Fighter 3tb has less detailed characters and environments, clipping issues, etc. and Sega Rally 2 is filled with issues.

With Virtua Fighter 4 people weren't expecting an arcade perfect port because 1) it wasn't promised, and 2) it was expected that the Naomi 2 Hardware was more powerful.


What really gets my goat is people claiming Virtual On Oratario Tangram wasn't a GREAT conversion, just because you need twinsticks for less than a handful of rarely useful super moves to be easier.

Maybe they're rarely used if you have never played with a twin stick before. Virtual On is a game where if you don't have enough buttons, it's going to be a serious problem. The Saturn port with a standard pad plays better simply because it has enough buttons to make it emulate a twin stick. After getting my Twin Stick years ago I can't fathom playing Virtual On without it.



VF3 being "bad" when Soul Calibur gets praised for having an upped resolution and better textures than the Arcade version just really makes me wonder why I bother with these conversations.

Well let's see, VF3 was promised to be Arcade Perfect, in the end it came out being worse. So that's a disappointment. No one was expecting Soul Calibur to look great, as it didn't look great in the Arcades. However not only did it get an increase in resolution and textures, but the polygon count was also increased. For the first time in a possibly ever, we had a 3D Arcade port on a home console that looked better than the Arcade. That was pretty surprising.

stu
01-16-2014, 08:17 PM
In response to Stu, I would level the exact same observations Sony fans take as an offense at the Genesis library after 1991. Mostly sequels and licensed games dominated the library rather than Arcade Adaptations and unique Action games from then on, once the Mainstream came in. I personally seriously lost interest in the Genesis library from late 1992 on and focused more on Sega CD and 32X games, and exclusive SNES games I wished I had like Star Fox, Sim City, Act Raiser, Super Double Dragon and Super Mario Kart.

If one of you wants to try to argue that the PS2 was considered, marketed by ANY company as, or its library otherwise mandates, an Action - Arcade gaming console by all means prove me wrong. To Barone's earlier comment about the Dreamcast having fewer games than he would expect on my list, I am pretty sure you realized I didn't list any scrolling spaceship shooters or 2D/3D Fighters. Would that amount to a number of games greater than the ever living PS2? Obviously not, but percentage of library and more importantly shelf space and marketing for these games was higher for the Dreamcast than they ever were for the PS2.

Am I trashing the PS2, saying it sucks and nobody should play God of War because of this? Please everybody take a deep breath and realize how silly that interpretation is. The PS2 is a fricking game console not a holy relic, and I would say it has garnered far more appreciation and promotion from fans than any console needs. I simply question its poor graphics in basically every game thanks to aliasing and low detail or palatalized textures and most of the games made for it obviously were not targeting me.

Its not so much that I am offended at you disliking the PS2 library, that is mostly down to personal preference. Its more the way you are using the term "mainstreamers", tbh it comes across as quite dismissive and almost elitist. My point was that regardless of whether a fan of video games considers themselves "hardcore", "casual" or even "core gamer" we all share the hobby of playing video and computer games and since you seem to be labelling PS2 owners as "mainstreamers" since most of the games on there are mainstream in your view I'm sure that PS2 owners on here probably could take that the wrong way. While it is unfortunate that you feel that the majority of games were not targetted at you I'm sure that there are some you would probably enjoy. I'd rather focus on the positives of the systems rather the dwell on negatives, yes the graphics sometimes suck and yes some of the games suck on the PS2, those negative talking points can be fired at pretty much any system. I sure PS2 fans feel the same way as you do when people criticize the Saturn and 32X. I think its fair to say that every system has its positives and its negatives and leave it at that.

sheath
01-16-2014, 09:06 PM
Its not so much that I am offended at you disliking the PS2 library, that is mostly down to personal preference. Its more the way you are using the term "mainstreamers", tbh it comes across as quite dismissive and almost elitist. My point was that regardless of whether a fan of video games considers themselves "hardcore", "casual" or even "core gamer" we all share the hobby of playing video and computer games and since you seem to be labelling PS2 owners as "mainstreamers" since most of the games on there are mainstream in your view I'm sure that PS2 owners on here probably could take that the wrong way. While it is unfortunate that you feel that the majority of games were not targetted at you I'm sure that there are some you would probably enjoy. I'd rather focus on the positives of the systems rather the dwell on negatives, yes the graphics sometimes suck and yes some of the games suck on the PS2, those negative talking points can be fired at pretty much any system. I sure PS2 fans feel the same way as you do when people criticize the Saturn and 32X. I think its fair to say that every system has its positives and its negatives and leave it at that.

I don't think I implied that everybody who owns or even prefers a PS2 over a Dreamcast is a mainstream/core gamer. That would be silly as plenty of people bought the system for more niche genres, or even as a DVD player and PS1 like me. ;) Seriously though, if you want to make some sort of case that I am attempting to establish a hierarchy among forum goers who may or may not actually be game enthusiasts and regular gamers, go for it. I'll just tell you at the start that you would be wrong. I am only making the distinction that game players have already made over the course of the industry, genre preferences and sometimes platform/brand preferences dictate most preferences.

The problem with the PS2's graphics isn't that some games suffer, it is that almost all of them suffer either in texture mapping or with aliasing or both. That is a big difference from some Saturn or 32X games having inferior graphics to others on the same system. The PS2 was the lowest common denominator for the entire generation. It was hyped, marketed and shilled as the greatest 3D hardware ever and it just wasn't, in any way. But any thread anywhere on the Internet or even in casual conversation about the PS2 and any other console of its generation will have somebody fire off that the PS2 was the strongest in the polygon department, or has the best games.

Could games be made to look as_good on PS2? Absolutely, Melbourne House managed it but most failed. Could I expect the next game I check to look as good on the PS2 as a similar game on the Dreamcast, Xbox or Gamecube? I would not make that recommendation to anybody.

More on Resident Evil 4, as I have brought up before the PC port is of the PS2 version not the Gamecube version. Somebody found the textures and lighting so inferior they managed to port all of the Gamecube textures and even enhance some (http://matriks3.foroactivo.com/t34-resident-evil-4-pc-texture-patch-v20). The results are quite impressive and as a result the patched PC game is my favorite version. It is because of this patch that I am fairly confident that most of the shadows in the game are textures rather than real lighting, as the original PC game lacks them and the texture patch adds (http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/3895370/Resident_Evil_4_PC_texture_patch_2.0_by_Albert_Mar in_Garau) them back in.

(More at link (http://matriks3.foroactivo.com/t34-resident-evil-4-pc-texture-patch-v20))
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/8295/03eb0.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3716/04ky9.jpg

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/567/05gi9.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4554/06ib3.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4870/13dr9.jpg


http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5191/15kd2.jpg

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4615/16lp4.jpg

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8346/17sr3.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/4927/27we7.jpg



http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3016/29tv5.jpg

gamevet
01-16-2014, 10:49 PM
Resident Evil 4 (HD) on the PS3 looks like ass, because it was a port of the PS2 game.

Didn't the GC version also include bump-mapping, that wasn't in the PS2 game?

TrekkiesUnite118
01-16-2014, 11:01 PM
Resident Evil 4 (HD) on the PS3 looks like ass, because it was a port of the PS2 game.

Didn't the GC version also include bump-mapping, that wasn't in the PS2 game?

Honestly I'd say the Wii version is the definitive version. It has the same graphics as the Gamecube version but in Anamorphic Widescreen (as opposed to letterboxed) so it's in a higher resolution. Plus it has by far the best controls of all versions. I actually hit a point in the Wii version where I had too much ammo because I always got head shots and never wasted any shots thanks to the Wii controls.

Creek Indian
01-17-2014, 12:00 AM
GCN≥PS2>DC≥N64>SS≥PS :confused: I want them all.

Best looking console..

SS>PS2≥N64>DC>GCN≥PS

o.pwuaioc
01-17-2014, 12:15 AM
GCN≥PS2>DC≥N64>SS≥PS
The DC is noticeably better looking than the N64. Just compare Rayman 2.

Yharnamresident
01-17-2014, 01:45 AM
Its good you put the Saturn ahead of the PS1, thats a common misconception around everywhere.

o.pwuaioc
01-17-2014, 01:51 AM
Its good you put the Saturn ahead of the PS1, thats a common misconception around everywhere.

*cough (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?17275-Comparison-of-5th-generation-(-quot-32-64-bit-quot-)-game-console-hardware)*

Yharnamresident
01-17-2014, 02:12 AM
Are you trying to link to an individual post? otherwise, tl;dr

Gogogadget
01-17-2014, 08:15 AM
Honestly I'd say the Wii version is the definitive version. It has the same graphics as the Gamecube version but in Anamorphic Widescreen (as opposed to letterboxed) so it's in a higher resolution. Plus it has by far the best controls of all versions. I actually hit a point in the Wii version where I had too much ammo because I always got head shots and never wasted any shots thanks to the Wii controls.

That sounds like it makes the game just a tiny bit too easy.

One more point for the Wii version though, it's probably my favourite version too.

The Jackal
01-17-2014, 10:50 AM
More on Resident Evil 4, as I have brought up before the PC port is of the PS2 version not the Gamecube version. Somebody found the textures and lighting so inferior they managed to port all of the Gamecube textures and even enhance some (http://matriks3.foroactivo.com/t34-resident-evil-4-pc-texture-patch-v20). The results are quite impressive and as a result the patched PC game is my favorite version. It is because of this patch that I am fairly confident that most of the shadows in the game are textures rather than real lighting, as the original PC game lacks them and the texture patch adds (http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/3895370/Resident_Evil_4_PC_texture_patch_2.0_by_Albert_Mar in_Garau) them back in.

(More at link (http://matriks3.foroactivo.com/t34-resident-evil-4-pc-texture-patch-v20))
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/8295/03eb0.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3716/04ky9.jpg

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/567/05gi9.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4554/06ib3.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4870/13dr9.jpg


http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5191/15kd2.jpg

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4615/16lp4.jpg

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8346/17sr3.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/4927/27we7.jpg



http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3016/29tv5.jpg

Wasn't the PC port frowned upon for being poor? As for those screenshots, that really is night and day.


Resident Evil 4 (HD) on the PS3 looks like ass, because it was a port of the PS2 game.

Wouldn't it make more sense that the PS3/360 version is little more than a port of the PC version? That's what lazy companies do right; just take an existing PC port and call it an "HD remake" when they re-release it for new consoles?

Gogogadget
01-17-2014, 07:28 PM
Resident Evil 4 HD is the Gamecube version running at 720p, they've done nothing to the models or assets so what the game really should of been called is Resident Evil 4 SD.

The PC version is awful but a patch to re-add lighting effects and some hi-res textures make it look an absolute ton better, the Wii version can be played on Dolphin with hi-res textures too.

sheath
01-17-2014, 08:22 PM
With how this thread has been going, I mostly expected a couple of responses to tell me the non-patched screenshots looked just fine and the return to the Gamecube textures wasn't a big deal. Way to throw me off folks.

The Jackal
01-17-2014, 08:40 PM
With how this thread has been going, I mostly expected a couple of responses to tell me the non-patched screenshots looked just fine and the return to the Gamecube textures wasn't a big deal. Way to throw me off folks.

The non-patched screenies look like shit compared to the high quality texture ones. I could put up with the low textures on the PS2 because, you know, I had no choice, but no way would I with the PC version. No excuse for that.

gamevet
01-17-2014, 11:18 PM
Resident Evil 4 HD is the Gamecube version running at 720p, they've done nothing to the models or assets so what the game really should of been called is Resident Evil 4 SD.

The PC version is awful but a patch to re-add lighting effects and some hi-res textures make it look an absolute ton better, the Wii version can be played on Dolphin with hi-res textures too.

That's not what I've heard. I've played/own the GC version, and looking at the quality of the textures, colors and objects, it looks very much like it wasn't based on that version of the game.

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9075100


Capcom has released several screens of Resident Evil 4 HD for gamers to view and, while the game looks cleaner, it may not look as good as many hoped it would. A reason behind this may be due to it being based on the PC build and is using weaker textures that were found on the PS2 build of the title.





Wouldn't it make more sense that the PS3/360 version is little more than a port of the PC version? That's what lazy companies do right; just take an existing PC port and call it an "HD remake" when they re-release it for new consoles?

The God of War HD collection on the PS3 looks pretty decent. Sure, the character models haven't really changed, but you'll notice smoother textures and AA.

sheath
01-17-2014, 11:34 PM
Since God of War is nominally a Sony game I don't think there has ever been a PC version for its developer to lazily port to HD consoles.

gamevet
01-17-2014, 11:52 PM
Since God of War is nominally a Sony game I don't think there has ever been a PC version for its developer to lazily port to HD consoles.


That goes back to lazy companies (as you had said earlier). Sony made an effort to improve the quality of their HD remakes on the PS3, while companies like Capcom did very little to improve their HD ports to consoles.

sheath
01-18-2014, 12:00 AM
Sony seemed to do a lot of things right after the PS3's initial flop. If they managed to make some of their own PS2 games truly HD remade good on them.

sheath
01-20-2014, 01:27 AM
Another example of what was going on in 2003, long after the Dreamcast's artificial demise. Most of this is on the PS2 for being the dominant platform that everything was ported from.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1zTXKoSfoM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLuJmNTrnoo

Gameplay @ 4:48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaGtNS_MvJU

Gameplay @ 5:04 (holy crap do I hate wasting five minutes of my time watching stuff before I get to the game)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-yy6DSaY_0

These don't even remotely look like an Xbox games.

Meanwhile, on Dreamcast back in 2001,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqYcaYq-m-o

Also:
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?26634-Ps2-vs-Dreamcast-graphics&p=633001&viewfull=1#post633001

Kamahl
01-20-2014, 10:04 AM
Headhunter pretty much confirms my suspicion that the things truly holding back the Dreamcast graphically were the lack of proper lighting in most games and poor polygon allocation.
It looks amazing for a 2001 game.

sheath
01-20-2014, 10:10 AM
I was noticing in Tenchu that the "shadow" never moves according to light sources, while PVR-DC's modifier volumes make that basically hit free. But yeah, polygon counts and general texture detail look very good in Head Hunter. The driving sequences don't look great, but they don't look worse than GTA to me. I don't think the newer systems were being pushed very far by 2003, and I don't think a Dreamcast version of most games would have been any big deal at all. At the worst developers would have switched from overnight ports from the PS1/PC to overnight ports from the PS2 or Xbox. If anything that would have improved the graphical quality of ports on the Dreamcast as a whole. PS2 ports would need all new textures, but at least they could fix the aliasing issues without even trying.

The Jackal
01-20-2014, 12:23 PM
How does the PS2 port of HeadHunter compare to the original Dreamcast version?

spiffyone
01-20-2014, 02:44 PM
Why are folks comparing VF3 and VF4 in this topic?

VF3tb was a rushed port by Genki. VF4 and VF4 Evo were ports that were developed by AM2 themselves, taking their time with things. It's a silly comparison that honestly makes DC look worse than it is.

sheath
01-20-2014, 03:26 PM
How does the PS2 port of HeadHunter compare to the original Dreamcast version?

I don't know, I keep meaning to pick that one up. I have Ecco, F355 and Le Mans 24hrs and aside from F355 the PS2 game is noticeably worse in the texture and resolution/aliasing.


Why are folks comparing VF3 and VF4 in this topic?

VF3tb was a rushed port by Genki. VF4 and VF4 Evo were ports that were developed by AM2 themselves, taking their time with things. It's a silly comparison that honestly makes DC look worse than it is.

To trash the Dreamcast while ignoring DOA2, or in my case to compare two games in the same series with very different focuses in the level design and graphics department. No Virtua Fighter after 3 had multi-tiered environments, but it gets trashed for not being 100% Arcade perfect while the PS2 games get a free pass because they're "just better".

Bottino
01-20-2014, 04:14 PM
Headhunter pretty much confirms my suspicion that the things truly holding back the Dreamcast graphically were the lack of proper lighting in most games and poor polygon allocation.
It looks amazing for a 2001 game.

Blue Stinger ( a 1999 release ) - one of the haters favorite, by the way - has some great lighting effects as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3zU4TEw1q0

sheath
01-20-2014, 04:24 PM
MDK2, Draconus, and even TNT Motorsports Hardcore Heat use a lot of lighting and shadows as well. The PS2 version of MDK2 doesn't have the shadows or reflective surfaces of the Dreamcast game. I'm sure that is just because it was a port and the developer didn't try though.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbkdyVnNU8A

Yharnamresident
01-20-2014, 04:43 PM
^^^sheath maybe you could bring that up when people say the Dreamcast was "in-between generations"

sheath
01-20-2014, 05:16 PM
I have met one or two people who think that the Dreamcast was Sega's answer to the N64 and the Saturn never existed. Neither of them can be helped at even keeping their hands clean after taking a crap. I'd rather talk about this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9DYfB8skk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI0-JDjmvBQ

Sorry folks these were the only real hardware captures I could find without blowing my brains out. Also, a PS2 review I can't vouch for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIqdgQ4tbGQ

NullDC long play with linked missions to view, I can't vouch for the video quality being anything near real hardware. It looks right to me except for effects and some polygons flickering randomly which doesn't happen in the actual game. Air Force Delta is the only Dreamcast game I own that won't work with the VGA adapter, and that is a real shame. Has anybody succeeded at making it work even with a CDR?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0xjch420ws

Yharnamresident
01-20-2014, 05:28 PM
I was reading some internet forums from 2004. They're like, "oh yea the Dreamcast was plenty powerful compared to N64 and PS1, but compared to PS2 and Xbox, couldn't hold a candle".

sheath
01-20-2014, 05:30 PM
I was reading some internet forums from 2004. They're like, "oh yea the Dreamcast was plenty powerful compared to N64 and PS1, but compared to PS2 and Xbox, couldn't hold a candle".

Yep, it was fairly prolific especially back then. People who choose to repeat such a view can't be helped though, seriously, it isn't even worth trying.

Kamahl
01-20-2014, 06:32 PM
Most of the games you mention sheath look really low poly and are poorly animated. That was the common look of the time but people love to compare that to God of War for some reason. I'd love to see what the DC could pull off given a team of the caliber that did GoW.

douglie007
01-20-2014, 06:42 PM
I will try and get some screens of games that are on both Dreamcast and PS2, I just bought me a new capture card and this gives me something to use it for... I am also going to do a video comparing the different Sega genesis Models. I have 10 different models to record.

j_factor
01-20-2014, 06:43 PM
How does the PS2 port of HeadHunter compare to the original Dreamcast version?

It's not as bad as Grandia II or anything, but it does suffer from the typical PS2 aliasing and texture downgrades. Also has worse loading times and doesn't support progressive scan. On the plus side, it does have better video quality on the FMVs, as the Dreamcast version was a little grainy from compression.

sheath
01-20-2014, 09:31 PM
Most of the games you mention sheath look really low poly and are poorly animated. That was the common look of the time but people love to compare that to God of War for some reason. I'd love to see what the DC could pull off given a team of the caliber that did GoW.

I'd love to see a Dreamcast game with God of War's budget and team size and toolsets and, what, 2004 development kits with 2004 tech, and the general stolen inspiration from LoK Defiance. ;)

I definitely agree, these are generally low polygon counts compared to games released five years later in the same generation. I thought Spy Hunter 2 from 2003 was a decent example of the average multi platform third person game though, Tenchu might actually be slightly above average for that. I mostly just think it is silly how these threads always go (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=608761&page=9).

Boss Pattern:
Look at Shenmue 1 or 2. Figure it was maxing out the Dreamcast. Claim that Metal Gear Solid 2-3, Gran Turismo and God of War could never ever be done any justice on the Dreamcast. Repeat.

Yharnamresident
01-20-2014, 10:28 PM
Most of the games you mention sheath look really low poly and are poorly animated. That was the common look of the time but people love to compare that to God of War for some reason. I'd love to see what the DC could pull off given a team of the caliber that did GoW.

Team Sega-16!! hows your home-brewing skills? I'll be junior assistant programmer, sheath on textures, tomaitheous on low-level programming, the list goes on!!

Team Andromeda
01-21-2014, 06:20 AM
I'd love to see a Dreamcast game with God of War's budget and team size and toolset

Shenmue cost way more had 200+ staff working on it . Sonic Adv Budget was HUGE (again the millions ) and at key moments the staff numbered 170 staff . DC could compete with the PS 2 for textures and all that It really lost out in the number of polygons though


Claim that Metal Gear Solid 2-3, Gran Turismo and God of War could never ever be done any justice on the Dreamcast

All those games run at 60 fps - That would be hard for the DC never mind trying to handle the number of polygons - that's where the DC would have come up short. And it's not just those games . SOC would be hard , DMC, ZOE 2, Hitman 3 (when there's hundreds of characters on screen) Demon Choas ,Burnout 3 , ESPN International Track and Field would be hard for the DC to handle imo

o.pwuaioc
01-21-2014, 06:56 AM
Team Sega-16!! hows your home-brewing skills? I'll be junior assistant programmer, sheath on textures, tomaitheous on low-level programming, the list goes on!!

Sega-16 doing a Dreamcast game? The DC gets enough love, how about another Genesis game. :)

The Jackal
01-21-2014, 12:42 PM
It's not as bad as Grandia II or anything, but it does suffer from the typical PS2 aliasing and texture downgrades. Also has worse loading times and doesn't support progressive scan. On the plus side, it does have better video quality on the FMVs, as the Dreamcast version was a little grainy from compression.

Did ANY early PS2 titles support progressive scan though? It seemed to be a rarely used feature.

Yharnamresident
01-21-2014, 03:17 PM
Shenmue cost way more had 200+ staff working on it . Sonic Adv Budget was HUGE (again the millions ) and at key moments the staff numbered 170 staff . DC could compete with the PS 2 for textures and all that It really lost out in the number of polygons though



All those games run at 60 fps - That would be hard for the DC never mind trying to handle the number of polygons - that's where the DC would have come up short. And it's not just those games . SOC would be hard , DMC, ZOE 2, Hitman 3 (when there's hundreds of characters on screen) Demon Choas ,Burnout 3 , ESPN International Track and Field would be hard for the DC to handle imo

There seems to be a mistaken belief that Gran Turismo 3 & 4 run at 60 FPS, because they sure as hell don't.

Yharnamresident
01-21-2014, 03:20 PM
Did ANY early PS2 titles support progressive scan though? It seemed to be a rarely used feature.

Op top of that, PS2 games always used crappy resolutions. I think alot of games were 640x240, jaggies galore.

Black_Tiger
01-21-2014, 04:02 PM
Did ANY early PS2 titles support progressive scan though? It seemed to be a rarely used feature.

Last time I saw a list of PS2 games that supported progressive scan, it was something one or two dozen. So <1% of PS2 games supported progressive scan while 1%(?) of DC games do not.

Gogogadget
01-21-2014, 04:15 PM
Yeah barely any PS2 games support progressive scan, it's a shame.

Bottino
01-21-2014, 04:37 PM
.


- Broken Record -

sheath
01-21-2014, 04:42 PM
Let me see if I can remember the arguments from Sony fans over the years. The 240 vertical resolution doesn't matter because the Graphics Synthesizer is so fast it can render double the lines just as fast as 480 line resolutions do. Games that have excessive aliasing are just doing it wrong and that isn't Sony's or the PS2's fault. So all of those games with excessive aliasing, while still great and better than games on other platform, aren't a big deal at all. In fact "waves hand" the aliasing isn't even really there because it shouldn't be there in the first place.

Chilly Willy
01-21-2014, 08:23 PM
The primary reason neither the PS2 nor the XBox supported progressive much was lack of consumer demand. Remember that this was before the widespread adoption of HDTV - the number of folks with progressive TVs could be counted on one hand. Going to 480 lines meant INTERLACED, which NOBODY liked. People would much rather have 240 progressive than 480 interlaced. With the much wider adoption of HDTV by 2006, the PS3 and XB360 both made progressive 480 and 720 standard for games.

Yharnamresident
01-21-2014, 09:31 PM
But I thought 2000-2006 was the 480i TV age.

The 480p EDTV age kinda started at the end of 2004, but those things never took off which is why they're so rare nowadays.

sheath
01-21-2014, 09:43 PM
DVD aficionados I knew in 2000 were all about progressive scan 480p TVs and DVD Players, which required a Component input and output. I didn't get my first HDTV until 2005 and it was a Toshiba RPTV from 2000. Dreamcast VGA users were primarily using PC monitors obviously. Also, keep in mind, consumers are still hooking up their HD consoles with stock Composite cables and not thinking twice by and large.

Yharnamresident
01-21-2014, 10:31 PM
An HDTV from 2000? pics?

And a HDTV from 2000, wow I bet it weighs about 600 lbs.

sheath
01-21-2014, 10:49 PM
RPTVs were fairly prolific by then. Mine supported 1080i through Component and I used it for the 360 just fine. It was actually a metric ton lighter than my 32" Sony Trinitron HDTV which I am pretty sure came out around the same time. On my 32" RCA and S-Video prior to that full screen dithering on PS1 and aliasing and previous gen quality textures on PS2 were always blaringly obvious, as was Genesis and Saturn dithering or low color in general.

Chilly Willy
01-21-2014, 11:45 PM
An HDTV from 2000? pics?

And a HDTV from 2000, wow I bet it weighs about 600 lbs.

:lol:

Yeah, most of the HDTVs of that time were huge rear-projection sets weighing hundreds (I just got rid of mine a month ago - hadn't used it in years, so it was just sitting in a room). If you paid enough, it even deinterlaced the picture... badly. :)

Modern LCD TVs have us all spoiled, which is why I still use my old Toshiba TIMM for my old consoles.

Yharnamresident
01-22-2014, 01:45 AM
Hmm... undoubtedly interesting technological information there, my fine gents.


So PS2 vs. Dreamcast. Ok so we know the Dreamcast can do anamorphic widescreen, but can the PS2 actually do true widescreen like 854x480? I said true, so no upscaling 640x360, just internally rendered at 854x480. And furthermore, has any PS2 game ever used a true resolution higher than 640x480?

TrekkiesUnite118
01-22-2014, 02:11 AM
So PS2 vs. Dreamcast. Ok so we know the Dreamcast can do anamorphic widescreen, but can the PS2 actually do true widescreen like 854x480? I said true, so no upscaling 640x360, just internally rendered at 854x480.

Resident Evil 4 does anamorphic Widescreen on the PS2 last I checked. It does it the same way the Wii and Dreamcast does if I remember correctly. It renders it as a 854x480 (or whatever 16:9 resolution it's using) to a 640x480 frame that will then be stretched by your TV to look correct.

Here's a list of progressive scan PS2 games for anyone interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_games_with_HD_support


And furthermore, has any PS2 game ever used a true resolution higher than 640x480?

No, why on earth should they? No other console short of the Xbox did anything higher than 480p that generation anyways. Gran Turismo 4 claims to do 1080i, but if I remember correctly it's just a 480p image that's stretched to the required size for 1080i. The game actually looks better in 480p.

Yharnamresident
01-22-2014, 03:36 AM
No, why on earth should they? No other console short of the Xbox did anything higher than 480p that generation anyways. Gran Turismo 4 claims to do 1080i, but if I remember correctly it's just a 480p image that's stretched to the required size for 1080i. The game actually looks better in 480p.

Cause apparently the PS2 is capable of that, the specs say "variable resolutions from 256x224 - 1280x1024". It would hurt the PS2 to do even 720x480 internally?

And I'm curious if those Xbox games aren't a bunch of lies either. Did you enjoy playing Red Dead Redemption on the PS3? too bad, that game is a pack of lies!!! thats not 720p, thats 1152x640!!!

j_factor
01-22-2014, 05:00 AM
No, why on earth should they? No other console short of the Xbox did anything higher than 480p that generation anyways. Gran Turismo 4 claims to do 1080i, but if I remember correctly it's just a 480p image that's stretched to the required size for 1080i. The game actually looks better in 480p.

GT4 is 480p stretched to 540p and then line doubled. It doesn't look very good.


Cause apparently the PS2 is capable of that, the specs say "variable resolutions from 256x224 - 1280x1024". It would hurt the PS2 to do even 720x480 internally?

The PS2 Linux kit could output up to 1280x1024. Command lines in HD! Actually having a game in that resolution is another matter.

Team Andromeda
01-22-2014, 10:13 AM
There seems to be a mistaken belief that Gran Turismo 3 & 4 run at 60 FPS, because they sure as hell don't.

Well sure there's the odd frame hit and the replays run at 30 fps , but the game runs ways faster than the likes of SEGA GT. Also if you want to nick pick like that DOA 2 runs at 60 fps even in the cut scenes on the PS2 and also REZ runs at double the frame rate of the DC version


Cause apparently the PS2 is capable of that, the specs say "variable resolutions from 256x224 - 1280x1024"

LOL apparently the Saturn can handle over 500,000 polygons . I love to see one Saturn game that is pushing anywhere near that figure in game.


And I'm curious if those Xbox games aren't a bunch of lies either

Well the likes of Amped 2 and SC II do run in 720P.

sheath
01-22-2014, 10:24 AM
720p Xbox games are definitely more crisp than the same in 480p, so much so that I have never seen anybody choose the lower resolution after they see the game in 720p. Most posts I have read turn into gushing graphics adoration immediately upon seeing the game at the then highest resolution actually.

TA, I'd like to know why you persist in claiming the PS2 could render more polygons per second than the Dreamcast in game. Why is this so obvious in games to you, and have you seen any developer comments on the topic?

Team Andromeda
01-22-2014, 11:39 AM
TA, I'd like to know why you persist in claiming the PS2 could render more polygons per second than the Dreamcast in game.

To take a driving for an example


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxCy80s8ylY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_bZRPWEins



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRHYyAsO3DI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPScNx1Bdi0




Why is this so obvious in games to you, and have you seen any developer comments on the topic

Yes plenty Capcom ,AM#2 Smilebit all said the PS2 could push way more polygons and how SEGA need to find new answers to fight the PS2 when SEGA went 9 Stuidos and the Teams did various features with the British press. There wasn't a single developer who came out and said the DC could push the same number of polygons

sheath
01-22-2014, 12:26 PM
When Gran Turismo 4 has more than two cars on screen I don't see the difference from Le Mans and F355. These developers who never claimed the Dreamcast could push as many polygons, did they happen to mention which PS2 spec the Dreamcast could not reach, or which game? Was it 75 million polygons? 20 million polygons as some in-a-vacuum benchmarks suggest? Or was it Gran Turismo 4's reported polygon count?

Also, everybody notice that I am not dismissing Gran Turismo 4 while putting a Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec video up. Gran Turismo 3 came out a year later than F355 Challenge and Test Drive Le Mans on hardware that was 1.5 years newer than the Dreamcast. I find that an apt comparison.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li9ArKS-knQ

Metropolis Street Racer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeQf_DEnPQM

Also, gords this is INTERESTING!
http://www.rsart.co.uk/2007/08/27/yes-but-how-many-polygons/


Dead or Alive series, Xbox, 2001-2004
Character – ~10,000-15,000

Gears of War, Xbox 360, 2006 (according to D’Artiste book)

Wretch – 10,000 polygons with diffuse, specular and normal maps

Boomer – 11,000 polygons with diffuse, specular and normal maps

Marcus – 15,000 polygons with diffuse, specular and normal maps

GTA San Andreas, PS2, 2004
Characters – 2,000 polygons with 1 256×256 8bit texture
NPCs – 1,200 polygons with 1 256×128 8bit texture

GTA IV, Xbox 360/PS3, 2008
Story Characters – 8-10,000 polygons with multiple 256×256/512×512 diffuse, specular and normal maps
NPCs – 3-4,000 polygons with multiple textures

Half-Life, PC, 1998
Zombie – 844 polygons
High Definition pack Zombie- 1700 polygons

Halflife 2, PC, 2004
Alyx Vance – 8323 polygons
Barney – 5922 polygons
Combine Soldier – 4682 polygons
Buggy (without mounted gun) – 5824 polygons
Classic Headcrab – 1690 polygons
SMG – 2854 polygons (with arms)
Pistol – 2268 polygons (with arms)

Halo, Xbox, 2001
Masterchief – 2,000 polygons

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, GC, 2002
Link – 2800 polygons

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, GC/Wii, 2006
Link – 6900 polygons
Lost planet, X360/PC, 2007

Wayne – 12392 polygons (but finally 17765 polygons for compatibility with motion blur effect)
VS robot – 30-40,000 polygons
Background – ~500,000 polygons

Mass Effect, X360, 2007
Sheppard + armor + weapons – ~20,000-25,000 polygons

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, PS2, 2005
Snake – 4,000 polygons

Project Gotham Racing 2, Xbox, 2003
Vehicles – 10,000 polygons

Project Gotham Racing 3, Xbox 360, 2006
Vehicles – 80,000-100,000 polygons

Quake, PC, 1996
200 polygons with 1 320×200 8bit texture using predefined palette.

Quake 4, PC, 2006
Player model – 2,500 polygons with multiple diffuse, specular and normal maps

Resident Evil 4, Gamecube, 2005
Leon – 10,000 polygons

Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, PS3, 2007
Main characters – ~20,000-30,000 polygons
Drake – ~30,000 polygons
Pirates – ~12,000-15,000 polygons

Unreal Tournament, PC, 1999
Player model – 800 polygons
Unreal Tournament 2k3, PC, 2003
Player model – 3,000 polygons

Unreal Tournament 3, PC, 2007
Weapon models – 4,500 to 12,000 triangles for the first person view

Virtua Fighter 5, Arcade/PS3/X360, 2006
Character – ~40,000 with diffuse, specular and normal maps
Background – 100,000 – 300,000 polygons

stu
01-22-2014, 01:31 PM
When Gran Turismo 4 has more than two cars on screen I don't see the difference from Le Mans and F355. These developers who never claimed the Dreamcast could push as many polygons, did they happen to mention which PS2 spec the Dreamcast could not reach, or which game? Was it 75 million polygons? 20 million polygons as some in-a-vacuum benchmarks suggest? Or was it Gran Turismo 4's reported polygon count?

Also, everybody notice that I am not dismissing Gran Turismo 4 while putting a Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec video up. Gran Turismo 3 came out a year later than F355 Challenge and Test Drive Le Mans on hardware that was 1.5 years newer than the Dreamcast. I find that an apt comparison.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li9ArKS-knQ

Metropolis Street Racer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeQf_DEnPQM



Having run both videos at the same time I would say the GT3 is more detailed and "looks better" imo. If you want an earlier PS2 driving game to put up against MSR and Le Mans then try Ridge Racer 5.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNcpyBfiwBY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNcpyBfiwBY

sheath
01-22-2014, 02:49 PM
I don't think I would put Ridge Racer 5 up against any racer of that generation, not the actual game I mean. Emulated and enhanced I'm sure it looks great though, but on the actual console it is the worst offender for the 240i or whatever issue PS2 games have. I personally would only compare GT3 to F355 on both systems, and then Test Drive Le Mans to its PS2 port. This thread is motivating me to take my game cabinet apart so I can rewire it with my Component Splitter/Amp and Barone's HD PVR. If I can get away from various repair projects for a minute without being exhausted that is my next project. ;)

Black_Tiger
01-22-2014, 02:49 PM
To take a driving for an example


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxCy80s8ylY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_bZRPWEins



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRHYyAsO3DI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPScNx1Bdi0


Grant Turismo 4 was released in 2005 (11 months before the Xbox 360), while PS2 development was still going strong and the industry in general was continuing to makes strides in 3D development. Le Man 24 Hours was released half a decade or one console generation earlier. F355 was released in late 1999 and the Dreamcast version is a port of that game.

If you'd like to say that the PS2 got to display more polygons in games or do more impressive 3D in general, that's fine. But the Dreamcast got cut short before it really got rolling and never had top publishers pushing the hardware with huge budgets. So we'll never know what it was actually capable of.

If the Mega Drive got canceled within a couple years, SNES fans would be saying similar things about the MD not having any more potential than it showed while developers were still getting the hang of it.

Yharnamresident
01-22-2014, 03:10 PM
Andromeda needs to see what a true 60 FPS game looks like, cause none of the games on this page run at 60 FPS. Same with on the PS3, Gran Turismo don't friggen run at 60 FPS.

It seems you insist those games do run at 60 FPS, and think we're too lazy to check for ourselves if they really are.

Barone
01-22-2014, 06:29 PM
I think the Character Models in VF4 are the only thing they managed to somewhat preserve from the Arcade version, ... The texture mapping is poor and either low resolution or low color I can't decide which.

God of War DOES eliminate the gameplay and replaces it with QTEs for the money shots in the boss fights.

I am actually just trying to describe most of the library and most of the games people were actually buying for the system around here. It doesn't even mean that, say, Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia or Devil May Cry have bad gameplay, I just means that they absolutely fill the player's time up with cinematics and setting and those are the main attraction.

Games that balance gameplay with storytelling and setting better are few and far between, the Batman Arkham games do it handily though and even have numerous challenge modes for the stealth and fighting gameplay. You could actually play an Arkham game in the challenge modes almost exclusively and never see the main game after beating it. That is what I am talking about with PS2 games being less about Action gameplay and more about other things.

Good find with the HD F-Zero GX video. I'm still not seeing anything that makes me think it would have to be clearly and obviously cut down on the Dreamcast side.

The PS2 games look better, if a little fuzzier, than they actually do on an SD-TV with S-Video thanks to Youtube's cruddy compression. I still see Aliasing first, and nothing specifically detailed to look at second, except for maybe a face in a closeup or a tree or monument (singular) per stage.

I have never seen a VF4 Arcade cabinet in person, otherwise I think I might be even harder on the PS2 game than I already am.

VF4 gets solid praise across the board and is a flawed Arcade conversion with an additional features menu. VF3 gets trashed for being, probably, 90+% accurate to the Model 3 game.

The problem with the PS2's graphics isn't that some games suffer, it is that almost all of them suffer either in texture mapping or with aliasing or both.

Could I expect the next game I check to look as good on the PS2 as a similar game on the Dreamcast, Xbox or Gamecube? I would not make that recommendation to anybody.

I'd love to see a Dreamcast game with God of War's budget and team size and toolsets and, what, 2004 development kits with 2004 tech, and the general stolen inspiration from LoK Defiance. ;)

Let me see if I can remember the arguments from Sony fans over the years. The 240 vertical resolution doesn't matter because the Graphics Synthesizer is so fast it can render double the lines just as fast as 480 line resolutions do. Games that have excessive aliasing are just doing it wrong and that isn't Sony's or the PS2's fault. So all of those games with excessive aliasing, while still great and better than games on other platform, aren't a big deal at all. In fact "waves hand" the aliasing isn't even really there because it shouldn't be there in the first place.

and aliasing and previous gen quality textures on PS2 were always blaringly obvious

When Gran Turismo 4 has more than two cars on screen I don't see the difference from Le Mans and F355.

Seriously nasty Aliasing? Nah, it's normal to us now. Nondescript "texture" blobs? You're crazy stupid. Which game plays better? The one with the most modes of course. Which game has multi-tiered environments instead of flat rings with deforming snow/sand occasionally breaking it up? Doesn't even matter, stupid question. Gotcha, I am teh sacrilege.
:roll:


I would be happy to be proven wrong, I do change my opinions.
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/22/dr-mccoy-and-captain-kirk-approve.gif






MagForce Racing video

Which is where I am pretty sure whoever was coming from when he said the Dreamcast game would have to be toned down in the polygon department. The only spec I know for F-Zero GX is 60FPS and 30 relatively low detail sled things on track, and as you mentioned trackside and under the track detail and sharp textures on the tracks.
The "30 relatively low detail sled things on track" actually are more detailed than the "9 relatively low detail sled things on track" in MagForce Racing (which is the DC's closest alternative).
To not talk about the N64-like textures in MagForce Racing or the vastly simplified tracks or its inconsistent frame rate.




I particularly agree with you regarding sheath's criticisms of the God of War games, I accept that parts of the games are "scripted" (they're actually called QTEs, but whatever) but IIRC the mighty Shenmue also has a fair few QTEs as well but yet I never see any complaints regarding Shenmue.
'Cause God of War is "mainstream cinematic crap" and Shenmue is a "unique genre blender".
The fact that God of War series is far more successful just shows how inferior the actual gameplay is and how the anti-competitive Sony tactics were responsible for the Sega's collapse.



I've played through both God of War I and II and finished both games, played it through on the standard difficulty level, I consider both games to be in the the beat em up genre, but with some puzzle elements as well.
I thoroughly enjoyed both games and have enjoyed many other PS2 games but I guess enjoying PS2 games and Playstation games in general, well that just makes me a "mainstreamer" lol :lol:
Yeah, if you play games which sold well you automatically have no taste for games. 'Cause the good consoles and games are the ones which fail to sell.



Just what racing games is sheath referring to?
Whatever racing game on the PS2 is a bad mainstreamer game focused on cinematics and whatever was popular in the year of its release...
So, uh, being able to play Gran Turismo games with force feedback is always a bad and non-arcade and non-exciting experience.
IDK if I made it clear though...



My personal favorite of that gen was probably the Burnout series of games (my favorite one is actually Burnout: Revenge, but they are all fun to play) the car handling was competent enough to make the game fun to play without getting too technical (imo) and I found the game challenging enough considering it had a large number of levels etc. The graphics on the PS2 are also pretty good (probably not as good as either the Xbox or GC versions, but they were detailed and I didn't notice any slowdown etc) I'm curious to know what are these "mainstreamer racing games" that are so worthless that they should not be discussed. I'm pretty sure that I'm about to get my 2nd "mainstreamer" brand again ..lol.
Again, Burnout games are crap since they were only released for mainstreamers' platforms. Those games don't have anything on arcade gameplay and not even a good sense of speed. Never mind the consistent 60 fps and progressive scan support.



Final comment is this on whole "mainstreamer" BS that I keep reading, I seem to recall that 20 odd years ago the Genesis was moderately popular (understatement intended) and was at the time a console frequented by "mainstreamers" (aka video game fans) and I know there were lots of sequels and "mainstream games" on there too, I don't hear anyone complaining about "oh no look at those mainstream Genesis games", but since its cool to bash the Playstation I guess that is a completely irrelevant point.
Oh, relax, at least sheath is a coherent guy. So he will use very similar arguments to thrash the PS1 in comparison to the Saturn.
Sony was being anti-competitive and spending money on false marketing while Sega was spending money on unique games, that's why Sega failed. Well, at least that's sheath's line of arguing to explain the dreadful sales of the Saturn while defending the existence of the 32X.



If one of you wants to try to argue that the PS2 was considered, marketed by ANY company as, or its library otherwise mandates, an Action - Arcade gaming console by all means prove me wrong.
PS2 has no arcade games after all, only DC has.



Obviously not, but percentage of library and more importantly shelf space and marketing for these games was higher for the Dreamcast than they ever were for the PS2.
Oh, the percentage card, that was expected. Games don't matter, percentage does. Great.
Having been supported by companies like Namco, Capcom, SNK and Sega makes the PS2 a bad choice for arcade lovers, oh well...



The PS2 is a fricking game console not a holy relic, and I would say it has garnered far more appreciation and promotion from fans than any console needs. I simply question its poor graphics in basically every game thanks to aliasing and low detail or palatalized textures and most of the games made for it obviously were not targeting me.
Yeah, very poor graphics (WARNING: ultra-late release from 2002 featuring awful stuff like 480p, solid 60 fps, widescreen support, detailed environment and lighting effects):

ZMbPLPGFdSY
v4OvEYNAF8k
Iau1dH_jQuc




You don't think a same generation comparison of games in the same series from two different platforms is appropriate? I'm not sure who brought it up first, but apparently VF3tb on Dreamcast is entirely bad for not being Arcade perfect but the PS2 game is awesome and unquestionable. That has been the frame for any Virtua Fighter Comparison on 6th Gen consoles since VF4 PS2 came out.
Oh, I'm pretty sure it was you. And guess what? You're already faulting the media for the problems of the port while praising it, YAY!

For 3D Fighters, Virtua Fighter 3tb was blasted by the media, but I have never seen a concise or comprehensive comparison with the Model 3 original that proves any flaws. Multi-tiered environments, relatively accurate motion captures martial arts moves, great frame based animation, this game was well ahead of its time.




For a graphical comparison though, I'd show Dead or Alive 2
Of course you would, as you have done countless times already in this very same thread.
Time to check your pattern:
Fighting games discussion:

DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 DOA2
Gameplay discussion:

Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue
PS2/GC/Xbox Graphics capability:

Shitty port OR Poor 3rd party game AND bad quality video from the worst moments of the game
DC Graphics capability:

Games developed for the DC first OR Top tier 1st party game AND HD video from the best moments of the game
When defending the VF3 mediocre port:

multi-tiered multi-tiered multi-tiered multi-tiered multi-tiered multi-tiered multi-tiered multi-tiered multi-tiered multi-tiered multi-tiered




They are both flawed conversions in different ways. The thing is, VF3 is an older and less technically demanding game, from older arcade hardware. The Model 3 is two years older than the Dreamcast, whereas the Naomi 2 debuted the same year as the PS2. With this in mind, one would have higher expectations of the Dreamcast's ability to handle a conversion of VF3, than the PS2's ability to handle a conversion of VF4. That the DC port of VF3 came up short was and is disappointing, though understandable considering the very short development time it had.
Thanks for the minded approach but be ready to get raped for not dismissing the PS2 game in all aspects.




For a 3D Fighter I tend to appreciate the little things like actual stages to fight in, and the first addition of facial detail including eye movement. Compared to Soul Calibur or Tekken Tag Tournament, or VF4 and Tekken 4-5 on PS2 I really don't consider VF3tb's engine all that dated.
Too bad that "actual stages to fight in" in games like Tekken Tag Tournament suck so badly... It's just awful to have people around like we had in shitty fighting game series like Street Fighter, Fatal Fury and The King of Fighters. To not talk about stuff like a stupid carousel in the background.

ptPy1LQhSWY




Its not so much that I am offended at you disliking the PS2 library, that is mostly down to personal preference. Its more the way you are using the term "mainstreamers", tbh it comes across as quite dismissive and almost elitist.
It sure does.



My point was that regardless of whether a fan of video games considers themselves "hardcore", "casual" or even "core gamer" we all share the hobby of playing video and computer games and since you seem to be labelling PS2 owners as "mainstreamers" since most of the games on there are mainstream in your view I'm sure that PS2 owners on here probably could take that the wrong way.
You gotta understand that you might have a passion for cinematic fillers over gameplay if you like PS2 games.
Having extra space to improve the presentation is always bad; that's why GDs ruled the world over the DVDs.



While it is unfortunate that you feel that the majority of games were not targetted at you I'm sure that there are some you would probably enjoy. I'd rather focus on the positives of the systems rather the dwell on negatives, yes the graphics sometimes suck and yes some of the games suck on the PS2, those negative talking points can be fired at pretty much any system. I sure PS2 fans feel the same way as you do when people criticize the Saturn and 32X. I think its fair to say that every system has its positives and its negatives and leave it at that.
No, one couldn't appreciate the PS2 graphics without being biased, brainwashed by evil Sony/media or just plain stupid.
Anti-aliasing cancels all good graphic features a game can have.
Poor color and lack of proper lighting is no problem though.
Low polygon objects are also better than high poly ones if they use unfiltered textures and that's a fact.
480p support is also way more important than widescreen support, 'cause 4:3 rulez and filling the whole screen of modern TVs without stretching the image is for losers.
The lack of a second analog stick is also an undeniable advantage, 'cause it prevents 3D games from having bad camera.
The less space the medium has the better, 'cause this way the gameplay will not be overshadowed by storytelling cinemas and other sorts of stupid content.
The less RAM the better, 'cause it prevents the console library from being contaminated with sand-box games which nobody cares, like GTA series.
Being able to play DVDs is also a bad feature, 'cause it attracts mainstreamers.



I don't think I implied that everybody who owns or even prefers a PS2 over a Dreamcast is a mainstream/core gamer.
You sure did.



Seriously though, if you want to make some sort of case that I am attempting to establish a hierarchy among forum goers who may or may not actually be game enthusiasts and regular gamers, go for it. I'll just tell you at the start that you would be wrong. I am only making the distinction that game players have already made over the course of the industry, genre preferences and sometimes platform/brand preferences dictate most preferences.
Actually, most of game players have made the following distinction between the Dreamcast and the PS2: failed and successful, respectively.
But I don't think you can deal with that without going completely delusional or overly dramatic. By the way, "The last arcade console" and "The mainstreamer's console" is a distinction which only exists in your mind.



Headhunter pretty much confirms my suspicion that the things truly holding back the Dreamcast graphically were the lack of proper lighting in most games and poor polygon allocation.
It looks amazing for a 2001 game.
sheath never admits that.




To trash the Dreamcast while ignoring DOA2,
Not even blind sega-16 members would manage to ignore DOA2 given that you bring it up every 6 hours.




No Virtua Fighter after 3 had multi-tiered environments, but it gets trashed for not being 100% Arcade perfect while the PS2 games get a free pass because they're "just better".
Yeah, "multi-tiered"; we got the idea, sheath.




Most of the games you mention sheath look really low poly and are poorly animated.
sheath never admits that. #2



I definitely agree, these are generally low polygon counts compared to games released five years later in the same generation.
Once you choose to do a very poor selection of games to every single non-DC platform like you do, yes.



Yeah barely any PS2 games support progressive scan, it's a shame.
You might have checked some pretty bad lists...
http://web.archive.org/web/20060206072538/http://www.hdtvarcade.com/ps2list.htm
http://psx-scene.com/forums/f291/golden-list-ps2-games-natively-output-progressive-scan-480p-105791/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Progressive_Scan_PS2_Games

For comparison:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060219230953/http://www.hdtvarcade.com/othersystemslist.htm
http://www.epforums.org/showthread.php?56169-Dreamcast-VGA-Compatability-list-amp-Guide
http://theisozone.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3765


Now, if you dare to play DC games in widescreen TVs or monitors (no, they aren't any common today), then you're screwed. But, no, that's not an advantage of the PS2 since we are all stuck in 2002 and we must have only 4:3 TVs and monitors.




The primary reason neither the PS2 nor the XBox supported progressive much was lack of consumer demand. Remember that this was before the widespread adoption of HDTV - the number of folks with progressive TVs could be counted on one hand. Going to 480 lines meant INTERLACED, which NOBODY liked. People would much rather have 240 progressive than 480 interlaced. With the much wider adoption of HDTV by 2006, the PS3 and XB360 both made progressive 480 and 720 standard for games.
No, No. Hell no!
HDTV was very popular already and that's why the PS2 definitely sucks.



DVD aficionados I knew in 2000 were all about progressive scan 480p TVs and DVD Players, which required a Component input and output.
I bet those were the same guys who would remember the PS2 as a DVD-Player first, right???

Yharnamresident
01-22-2014, 06:59 PM
God I knew Barone was lurking for a long time doing something, but holy crap.

Yea why don't I talk about PS2 pluses:

- a more suitable amount of RAM for a generation jump

- controller has enough buttons

- made the jump to DVD technology, who the f*ck cares about watching DVDs, you got tons of storage space for 3-4 GB games

- Toy Story graphics

sheath
01-22-2014, 07:10 PM
Okay, so contrary to every discussion I have ever had with you Barone, you now find the PS2 the miracle that most Sony fans find it? Should I twist and exaggerate all of your posts in this thread the way you have been twisting and distorting mine? Aside from my replies to your troll posts I have been comparing Dreamcast and PS2 games across genres. If you don't like that the PS2 focuses heavily on cinematics and Urban themes fine, but don't try to lie about what I am saying. We both know that style of game is not the only thing the PS2 library offers.

Now, on Burnout 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt3l3hy0ymw&feature=player_detailpage


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG-JDTNdi64&feature=player_detailpage

Notice the improvements made between the two versions? No? Yes? Don't care? Okay, another question, do either versions of Crazy Taxi use Normal Mapping or any other graphical effects to improve the look of the polygons on screen? Does Burnout 2? Does anybody_even know? Also, I am sure we are all comfortable with Crazy Taxi 2 being the absolute best the Dreamcast could EVER produce while allowing for the the Burnout series' to improve incrementally each release, particularly in effects,

And ONCE AGAIN, since Barone has distorted my comments on the DVD thing, if the PS2 was canceled early on it _would_not be remembered for its library. I will stand by that statement, the first few years of PS2 releases were mediocre with rare exceptions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJXiyIw7vvQ

Kamahl
01-22-2014, 07:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zyeBm1z__E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkSijkjmLA

iPhone with a PowerVR chip about as powerful as the Dreamcasts (note that this is running on a bandwidth constrained system, with an OS in the away, and using a "high level" library):
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fswLwDWJtwM/TOOTCff3AFI/AAAAAAAAAvQ/XuYL-pmpn04/s1600/RE42.jpg

Yharnamresident
01-22-2014, 08:11 PM
That would've been awesome on Dreamcast, something similar to Metroid.

But the question is, what is FMV, and what is internally rendered? that big spider looks like 50,000 polygons

Kamahl
01-22-2014, 08:25 PM
But the question is, what is FMV, and what is internally rendered? that big spider looks like 50,000 polygons
Nah it's just really well made, you can tell it's not very high poly. Good usage is more important than count ;).

Barone
01-22-2014, 08:43 PM
Okay, so contrary to every discussion I have ever had with you Barone, you now find the PS2 the miracle that most Sony fans find it? Should I twist and exaggerate all of your posts in this thread the way you have been twisting and distorting mine? Aside from my replies to your troll posts I have been comparing Dreamcast and PS2 games across genres. If you don't like that the PS2 focuses heavily on cinematics and Urban themes fine, but don't try to lie about what I am saying. We both know that style of game is not the only thing the PS2 library offers.

And ONCE AGAIN, since Barone has distorted my comments on the DVD thing, if the PS2 was canceled early on it _would_not be remembered for its library. I will stand by that statement, the first few years of PS2 releases were mediocre with rare exceptions.
After all your absurd claims, nonsense generalizations and non-sourced statements about the DC/PS2/GC capabilities, I'm the troll??? ahahah, fine.
Feel free to call me whatever makes you feel better.




Now, on Burnout 2:
You seem to fail to realize that, pedestrians aside, the cities of either Crazy Taxi games on the DC are FAR less detailed and lower poly than the ones in Burnout 2.
The draw distance is also clearly shorter, with the streets being mostly very narrow and the open areas being rather sparse-looking in Crazy Taxi games. To not talk about Burnout 2 having AI cars running against you and whose 3D models look just as detailed as your car. The buildings, for the most part, look like shoe boxes even in Crazy Taxi 2. But that doesn't matter, right?

Yharnamresident
01-22-2014, 10:12 PM
Someone at Sega sure loves low-poly pedestrian cars, without transparent windows.

http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100723235749/sonic/images/f/fb/SA_Sonic_vs_Chaos.png

Black_Tiger
01-22-2014, 11:20 PM
Someone at Sega sure loves low-poly pedestrian cars, without transparent windows.

http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100723235749/sonic/images/f/fb/SA_Sonic_vs_Chaos.png

That's an upgraded Saturn port developed on low-balled guesstimation kits before the Dreamcast hardware was finalized.

sheath
01-22-2014, 11:22 PM
After all your absurd claims, nonsense generalizations and non-sourced statements about the DC/PS2/GC capabilities, I'm the troll??? ahahah, fine.
Feel free to call me whatever makes you feel better.

You are trolling me because I'm saying something you don't like about a Sony console. You have repeatedly taken my statements and ran them on to the absurd in this thread. I'm not even sure you realize how unreasonably you have taken my statements.


You seem to fail to realize that, pedestrians aside, the cities of either Crazy Taxi games on the DC are FAR less detailed and lower poly than the ones in Burnout 2.
The draw distance is also clearly shorter, with the streets being mostly very narrow and the open areas being rather sparse-looking in Crazy Taxi games. To not talk about Burnout 2 having AI cars running against you and whose 3D models look just as detailed as your car. The buildings, for the most part, look like shoe boxes even in Crazy Taxi 2. But that doesn't matter, right?

You clearly don't realize that I made no comparison or claims at all about Crazy Taxi 1 & 2 proving the Dreamcast's superiority. This is the same "misunderstanding" you have had with all of my other posts. Somehow observing that PS2 games have aliasing problems and low res textures, by and large, is run on to say that nothing on the PS2 can possibly look good to me. Somehow observing that PS2 games tend toward, and are marketed by, cinematic quality and story telling and "mood/theme", especially urban themed games, and less toward advancements in Action gameplay is saying there are no good games on the PS2. Observing that the only thing better about Virtua Fighter 4 graphically is the character models and that it isn't Arcade perfect either somehow gets you to think I am claiming VF4 sucks or isn't worth looking into. Posting videos of games in similar genres means to you that I think the Dreamcast game looks better or is better in some objective way, when in fact I have been repeating the same question "which one has more polygons, which one has better textures, which one has higher resolution?"

Somehow not accepting Sony's claims that the PS2 is obviously and clearly superior to the Dreamcast when I have tried game after game and completely do_not see it means I get to get blasted with straw man arguments. I haven't seen the likes of this since Usenet. Rail on me if you like, but at least admit that you aren't taking my comments at face value.

Another comparison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uHwCtGKmxo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNCzZfuUH6g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcmojAb1JfU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zyeBm1z__E[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkSijkjmLA[/video]

Gunvalkyrie on Xbox has fairly closed environments and always struck me as a last minute port from the Dreamcast. It also completely failed as a game on the Xbox for emphasizing a unique gameplay mechanic and gameplay in general while having next to no story.



iPhone with a PowerVR chip about as powerful as the Dreamcasts (note that this is running on a bandwidth constrained system, with an OS in the away, and using a "high level" library):
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fswLwDWJtwM/TOOTCff3AFI/AAAAAAAAAvQ/XuYL-pmpn04/s1600/RE42.jpg

That is a really small picture, what is the game and chip? How much RAM can the PVR access? This reminds me also that the Tile Based Renderer in the PVR2-DC would never have been in its best performance in a Sandbox game or wide open areas. The chip was designed around dense enclosed 3D environments that would naturally tax fillrate before the days software Z-buffers were common. Hey that is another area somebody can freely brow beat me on, when were software Z buffers implemented and what games used them to effectively eliminate any advantage a tile based renderer had, or was it a moot point by the time hardware T&L came along?

Barone
01-23-2014, 12:52 AM
You are trolling me because I'm saying something you don't like about a Sony console.
I was just being sarcastic and ironic towards your nonsense in this thread. Trolling would be flooding the thread with nonsense/exaggerated stuff, and that's what you did several times by yourself.



You have repeatedly taken my statements and ran them on to the absurd in this thread.
Several of your statements don't need to be run on to the absurd 'cause they are already absurd in their original form.



I'm not even sure you realize how unreasonably you have taken my statements.
I hope someday you'll be able to re-read some of your posts in this thread and provide a rational support to them or just delete them for the greater good.



You clearly don't realize that I made no comparison or claims at all about Crazy Taxi 1 & 2 proving the Dreamcast's superiority. This is the same "misunderstanding" you have had with all of my other posts.
sheath, it's about you and *only* you in this entire thread trying to prove that the Dreamcast graphical capabilities were on par or better with the PS2 and GC ones while dismissing the PS2 library for no good reason almost all the time.
There's no misunderstanding or anything, there's just you *flooding* the whole thread with your personal generalizations, PS2 library dismissive statements, PS2/GC graphical capabilities dismissive statements and trying to force everyone to agree with them.

Now, in the real world, the Dreamcast went unsupported very early in the 6th gen run and that makes it VERY DIFFICULT to assume, as you ALWAYS do and want everybody else to do as well, that based on its released games it FOR SURE could have matched or surpassed the graphical quality of the later PS2 games (in such context, Burnout 2 is a 2002 game and it already shows features and characteristics that I'm having a very hard time to find in a similar level in 2001 DC games; stuff like that DOESN'T PROVE anything but it ISN'T A GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THE DC BY ANY MEANS) or the GC-based ones. The OFFICIAL numbers, be them right or wrong, also point to the OPPOSITE direction of your statements.
Furthermore, you didn't manage to find A SINGLE INTERVIEW or TESTIMONIAL of a developer stating that the DC graphical capabilities were, at least, on par with the PS2 ones. And, actually, the developers used to point, again, TO THE OPPOSITE direction of what you claim.
So, by any means, feel free to call me a troll and liar how many times you want, but in this very thread it's you and not me trying to "prove" something that goes against ALL evidences we have.
Thanks. ;)



Somehow observing that PS2 games have aliasing problems and low res textures, by and large, is run on to say that nothing on the PS2 can possibly look good to me.
Observing? No, you're generalizing your personal experience based on a handful of games (from which several are DC-to-PS2 ports according to you) and trying to state that as a fact about the whole libraries of both consoles:

The graphics being generally smoother than PS2 games is just another perk.

Also, the PS2 seems to get a free pass all the time for sucking graphically because somehow it is performing better while looking like complete ass.

The problem with the PS2's graphics isn't that some games suffer, it is that almost all of them suffer either in texture mapping or with aliasing or both.
Now, please, tell everybody how I distort your posts.



Somehow observing that PS2 games tend toward, and are marketed by, cinematic quality and story telling and "mood/theme", especially urban themed games, and less toward advancements in Action gameplay is saying there are no good games on the PS2.
First, let's see what you actually said:

I would say the Dreamcast is the last Arcade-Action console, and the PS2 is the first mainstream/core console. The former emphasized challenge and gameplay, the later emphasized cinematic quality and whatever theme was popular that year (usually dark/noir urban violence).
That's just you saying bollocks about the whole lifespan of a console based on your own experience (some of which were already opposed by stu, for an example) and gaming tastes. Your view about something is NOT the same thing of a historical fact.
And, actually, that would be a very hard-to-define "fact" since the perception of the gameplay can vary a lot from gamer to gamer. Like the millions of gamers who enjoy the gameplay of GoW series while you think it's all QTE with no gameplay.
We also have people in this forum which defined, to the contrary of my opinion, your "unique genre blender" Shenmue as a "glorified demo". Deal with it.



Observing that the only thing better about Virtua Fighter 4 graphically is the texture models and that it isn't Arcade perfect either somehow gets you to think I am claiming VF4 sucks or isn't worth looking into.
You actually stated "The textures are ultra low detail and color" and "the background models look like toys and some parts of the characters look like they are non-textured lit polygons with cellophane wrapped around them" about VF4 Evo. Which is both wrong and exaggerated.



Posting videos of games in similar genres means to you that I think the Dreamcast game looks better or is better in some objective way, when in fact I have been repeating the same question "which one has more polygons, which one has better textures, which one has higher resolution?"
We both know that your approach in this thread have been very different from that.



Somehow not accepting Sony's claims that the PS2 is obviously and clearly superior to the Dreamcast when I have tried game after game and completely do_not see it means I get to get blasted with straw man arguments. I haven't seen the likes of this since Usenet.
Somehow making absurd and/or exaggerated and/or passionate and/or biased claims through an entire thread will often result in bad things.



Rail on me if you like, but at least admit that you aren't taking my comments at face value.
Please, tell me, what's the "face value" of stuff like this:

If the PS2 hadn't lasted ten freaking years it would be remembered as a DVD player first, a PS1 second and a PS2 player third.

By the time the PS2 "took off" with actual software that needed Dual Analog sticks, it was for games with shoddy AI cameras that forced the player to play Actor and Director.

To moderate your passionate statements and contain your hatred towards a given company or brand would make your arguments sound a lot better in any future discussions.

sheath
01-23-2014, 12:57 AM
When have I dismissed a PS2 game? Answer that one question.

Barone
01-23-2014, 01:07 AM
When have I dismissed a PS2 game? Answer that one question.
OK:

God of War is scripted throughout, so it is too bad that there isn't a Dreamcast game that amps up the polygon counts through eliminating gameplay like that.

Obviously though, the PS2 has a freaking metric ton of these with various poor to okay standards for gameplay mechanics, with GTA on the extremely poor end.

sheath
01-23-2014, 01:20 AM
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by sheath http://www.sega-16.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?p=635473#post635473)
When have I dismissed a PS2 game? Answer that one question.
OK:
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by sheath http://www.sega-16.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?p=633045#post633045)
God of War is scripted throughout, so it is too bad that there isn't a Dreamcast game that amps up the polygon counts through eliminating gameplay like that.



http://www.sega-16.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by sheath http://www.sega-16.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?p=633231#post633231)
Obviously though, the PS2 has a freaking metric ton of these with various poor to okay standards for gameplay mechanics, with GTA on the extremely poor end.




Thank you. I am not seeing what you are seeing. What I intended to say in order is there is not an in game sequence in a Dreamcast game that bounces up the polygon counts while eliminating the gameplay and AI. Third person shooters on the PS2 also have a ton of games with bad or no aiming like GTA3.

If I recall this comment was in support of my observation that the PS2 library gets a free pass for bad gameplay mechanics as long as the theme or cinematics are right. That is where your full on assault on everything went wrong actually. There are plenty of Action games on the PS2 actually, that is not something I have contested. There are plenty of great games on the PS2, I would never claim otherwise. But when it comes to games that play horribly even with ten buttons and two analog sticks? The PS2 is easily as bad as any example anyone can come up with. And that wasn't even my original point.

I was only musing about what the Dreamcast and PS2 libraries were focusing on, and what each system was marketed for.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-23-2014, 01:24 AM
\What I intended to say in order is there is not an in game sequence in a Dreamcast game that bounces up the polygon counts while eliminating the gameplay and AI.

I could be wrong here but I think Shenmue does this during it's cutscenes. It was a rather common trick that AM2 did on Virtua Fighter for the 32X and I'm pretty sure they did it in some of their Saturn titles as well.

Barone
01-23-2014, 01:27 AM
Thank you. I am not seeing what you are seeing. What I intended to say in order is there is not an in game sequence in a Dreamcast game that bounces up the polygon counts while eliminating the gameplay and AI. Third person shooters on the PS2 also have a ton of games with bad or no aiming like GTA3.

If I recall this comment was in support of my observation that the PS2 library gets a free pass for bad gameplay mechanics as long as the theme or cinematics are right. That is where your full on assault on everything went wrong actually. There are plenty of Action games on the PS2 actually, that is not something I have contested. There are plenty of great games on the PS2, I would never claim otherwise. But when it comes to games that play horribly even with ten buttons and two analog sticks? The PS2 is easily as bad as any example anyone can come up with. And that wasn't even my original point.

I was only musing about what the Dreamcast and PS2 libraries were focusing on, and what each system was marketed for.
Well, I still don't get why you say stuff like that. It seems kinda pointless and unnecessary to me, I don't even fully agree with that...
So, I think it would be better if we agree to disagree, 'cause this discussion has already burned a lot more than I'd like to see.

I'm sorry for all this shit.

sheath
01-23-2014, 01:40 AM
Well, I still don't get why you say stuff like that. It seems kinda pointless and unnecessary to me, I don't even fully agree with that...
So, I think it would be better if we agree to disagree, 'cause this discussion has already burned a lot more than I'd like to see.

I'm sorry for all this shit.

I freaking hate it that is for sure. But when you see a Ninty fan claim that the NES library is universally better than the Master System or any 80s PC you take issue right? The Snes versus the Genesis or TG16 has its faults right? The N64 with all of its "true 3D" capabilities can't add up to 60FPS PS1 or Saturn games in the same way right? The PS2 is the ultimate version of what Nintendo 64 marketing attempted. People have bought that line hook, line and sinker and I see no reason to do anything but oppose it. If it were the Genesis that was supposed to be the best 16-bit console, hell I actually do trash the popular games for being low color or even NES ports.

Hidden and Dangerous is my favorite Dreamcast FPS. It looks like an early 3DFX game for no good reason and I haven't decided whether I suck at it or the Dreamcast controller is horrible. Magforce racing is obviously not optimized for the Dreamcast, same with Omikron or even the Half Live Gold release. That has been, and will remain, my only point in threads like these.

I used Magforce as an example of what F-Zero GX would definitely not need to be toned down for. It was a port or poorly optimized game made for an unproven and ultimately canceled platform. With the rest, your running my comments on to the absurd (DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue) completely fails you and only you in your argument. If the PS2 is clearly and obviously superior to the Dreamcast prove it. That is all.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-23-2014, 01:41 AM
What's really comical here is the stuff you're ripping sheath a new one over is the exact same shit I called him a hypocrite over and upset you so much.

Yharnamresident
01-23-2014, 01:42 AM
Alright the PS2 is more powerful, but they're still in the same batch of millennium-era hardware.

Barone
01-23-2014, 02:17 AM
The PS2 is the ultimate version of what Nintendo 64 marketing attempted. People have bought that line hook, line and sinker and I see no reason to do anything but oppose it.
That's really not my thing. I don't intend to "correct" history.


I used Magforce as an example of what F-Zero GX would definitely not need to be toned down for.
The problem is that you have ZERO technical arguments and details to make such a strong claim.


It was a port or poorly optimized game made for an unproven and ultimately canceled platform.
It doesn't make the game look any better though, sheath. And we are in a graphics discussion.


With the rest, your running my comments on to the absurd (DOA2 DOA2 DOA2 Shenmue Shenmue Shenmue) completely fails you and only you in your argument.
Do you really believe that? When will you assume all your pathetic claims in this thread?


If the PS2 is clearly and obviously superior to the Dreamcast prove it. That is all.
Best looking PS2 games shit all over the best looking DC games. Like it or not.
The rest is all conjectures, esoteric projections and assumptions by you with ZERO technical data to support.

And I'm getting convinced that you can't deal with that in a reasonable way.

GreyFox
01-23-2014, 06:48 AM
The thing for me is that these discussions always descend into “here is an example of a game on PS2 that Dreamcast definitely couldn’t do” whereas the focus should be on “could the Dreamcast have “competed” with the other systems of that generation for longer than it did?”

Of course the Dreamcast is less powerful than the XBOX. The Dreamcast launched in November 98 in Japan whereas the XBOX was released in 2001. They could almost belong to different generations. It is also ok to prefer a systems library to another systems library (regardless of the quality or quantity of the other libraries available). It is a bit like supporting a football team – you know that the team you support aren’t as good or as skilful as say Barcelona or Bayern Munich but that doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of stunning moments, nail biting drama, late match winning goals and winning a one off game against superior opposition. Having said that consoles shouldn’t be tribal like football supporters and you should be able to support more than one…….

The difficulty with EVERY generation is that the first machine released tends to get a lot of, often lazy, up ports from the previous Gen. These are often pretty much copy and paste jobs with maybe a marginal increase in resolution and frame rate rather than all new polygon models etc. Look at XBOX 360 – at launch a lot of the games were things like King Kong and Gun which clearly betrayed their previous gen origins. The Dreamcast also suffered from this with a lot of pretty lazy ports from PS1 (and PC). Developers/Publishers tend to develop for the dominant platform and then use that version as the basis for a port to the other machines. This often results in either A) a marginally enhanced port B) a straight like for like port or C) a lazy port that is actually worse than the original rather than using the capabilities of the hardware. Understandable as the aim is to get something workable out of the door to sell. Often Developers will code for the lowest common denominator across the hardware so lets say we have three machines, one limited by polygon count, one limited by texture memory and one has no such restrictions – generally the game will be developed with low polygon models with repeated textures across all three systems.

One thing that also happens is that developers learn new techniques and “cheats” to simulate effects previously thought impossible on the hardware. I remember reading that the developers worked out a way of simulating HDR light bloom effects in Shadow of the Colossus based on techniques used on the 360. Will try to find the source of this.

It should be no shock that games developed specifically with the strengths of any given hardware in mind are usually far more impressive than multi platform ports. Check out the top exclusives on any of the platforms and you’ll see the true power of the systems. MGS2 was clearly coded around the idiosyncrasies of the PS2 which is why the XBOX port was disappointing. Clearly a MGS game coded with the strengths of the original XBOX in mind could have been a stunner.

With regards to PS2 it was more powerful than Dreamcast in a lot of ways (as it should be launching in March 2000 so over a year later) but it wasn’t as all conquering as the hype would have you believe. Because of Sony’s dominance in the market place and the fact that GameCube and XBOX were still some way off and because many developers had put all their eggs in the Sony basket they had to make it work, they had to learn to code for the convoluted hardware (in a way they didn’t have to for Saturn as they had the PS1 as an easy to develop for alternative). What would have been very interesting is if XBOX had launched the same day as PS2 or if XBOX was the lead platform for more of the multi platform games (like it was late on for stuff like TOCA 3)

Having said I do remember that the PS2 had an insanely high fill rate compared to anything that gen (and even higher than PS3 and possibly 360).

So back to my original “What if” – could the Dreamcast have competed with the other consoles of that generation longer than it did? I’d say yes. The reason being that it wasn’t hardware short-comings that caused Sega to pull the plug when they did but a lack of money. The hardware was clearly capable of competing with 90% of the stuff that was released on the other systems (and also may have benefitted from middleware solutions) and only fell short of maybe the top end 10% of stuff coded around the strengths of the others.

Could the Dreamcast have run the same games exactly the same as the PS2 versions? Probably not but then the stock PS2 couldn’t run certain Dreamcast games exactly the same way as a Dreamcast either (for example PSO – built in modem of DC allows people to play it online as intended – PS2 would need an add on (although I guess the PSTwo had a built in Ethernet port). I do believe that the Dreamcast could have done perfectly respectable versions of most of the games of that generation though.

Lets assume that Sega didn’t have the money troubles that caused it to go to software only. Sega pulled the plug in 2001 and the software dried up in 2002 (lets ignore late games like Under Defeat, Karous, Radirgy etc and the indie releases) so the machine lasted from 98/99 until 2002. So let’s say a 2 and a half year run. I truly believe it could have lasted (in terms of hardware remaining competitive) until at least 2004 which would have meant a 4 and a half to 5 year run and would have meant a Sega machine launched in 2004 ( a year before 360).

If this seems to far fetched then how about a scenario where Sega did go multi format and did not release further hardware but continued to release software for Dreamcast until 2004 as well as on the other machines. This would mean the only place to get all Sega games in one place would be on Dreamcast. Let’s assume some limited third party support too. What would the software line up have looked like? I think something like this:

2001 to 2004
Shinobi (PS2 and Dreamcast)
Nightshade (PS2 and Dreamcast)
Gun Valkyrie (XBOX and Dreamcast)
ToeJam and Earl 3 (XBOX and Dreamcast)
Panzer Dragoon Orta (XBOX and Dreamcast)
Sonic Heroes (all platforms)
Super Monkey Ball (GameCube and Dreamcast)
Super Monkey Ball 2 (all platforms)
Jet Set Radio Future (XBOX and Dreamcast)
Headhunter Redemption (XBOX/PS2 and Dreamcast)
Beach Spikers (GameCube and Dreamcast)
Virtua Striker 3 (GameCube and Dreamcast)
Virtua Fighter 4 (PS2 and Dreamcast)
Billy Hatcher (GameCube and Dreamcast)
Project Gotham Racing (XBOX and released on Dreamcast as Project Gotham Racing: MSR 2)
NBA 2K3
NFL 2K3
NHL 2K3
WSL 2K3
Sega Soccer Slam (all platforms)
House of the Dead 3 (XBOX and Dreamcast)

Add in some translations of:
Segagaga
Hundred Swords
Rent-a-Hero


Let’s add in ports of popular multi platform titles such as:

Tony Hawks 3 (came out on PS1 and N64 and the Dreamcast can play it via Bleem)
Tony Hawks 4 (can play the PS1 version via Bleem)
Soul Calibur 2 (Namco – featuring an exclusive character – maybe Ryo from ShenMue)
Mr Driller 2 (Namco)
Burnout (using Vanishing Point as a frame of reference)
True Crime: Streets of LA (if you assume GTA3 wouldn’t be possible then this should be doable – it came out on GameCube – use Super Runabout as an idea of what it could be like)
Medal of Honour series (Front Line and European Assault?)
Call of Duty (early entries like Big Red One, Their Finest Hour)


As well as some ports of some of the other things they released at the time:

Sonic Pinball Party (GBA and Dreamcast)
House of the Dead Pinball (GBA and Dreamcast)
SEGA AGES Collection (PS2 and Dreamcast – the 3D budget remakes bundled as a 10 game collection)
Mini Moni Tambourine (ported from PS1 and using a tambourine peripheral)

Some arcade ports by Sega:
Wild Riders
Planet Harriers
Daytona 2
Scud Race
Virtua Cop 3


And some speculative sequels:
Power Stone 3 (Capcom)
Ecco the Dolphin 2
Virtua Tennis 3 (or if this seems too much of a stretch a home only version called some like Virtua Tennis Championship 2003)
Yu Suzuki Game Works Vol 2
SNK vs Capcom Card Fighters (cross compatible with the NGPC version)
And a port of SNK vs Capcom Chaos

Seems a fairly decent selection of titles.

To be honest all the systems of that generation were capable of great looking games.

The Dreamcast could have handled probably 80% of the titles that came out on the other 3 platforms (with minor downgrades etc in terms of poly count, frame rate, resolution etc if required) and wouldn’t have got most of the remaining 20% anyway which would lean towards exclusives etc but would counter these with its own first party offerings.

Checking the list of PS2 games that sold over a million copies – once you exclude the stuff that was exclusive (effectively first party stuff in a lot of ways) like the Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Gran Turismo etc series then you get left with a lot of EA sports games (the Maddens, Fifa’s etc), and lots of licensed stuff like SpiderMan the Movie, Simpsons Hit and Run, Lord of the Rings, Lego “film series” trilogy etc etc all of which I reckon the DC could have made a decent stab at. Not exact replica’s but close enough. If EA had decided to actually support Dreamcast I’m pretty sure it could have handled most of the games they released – I mean the Visual Concepts sports games look fairly close graphically to the EA equivalents.

TL:DR – Dreamcast while not as powerful as other systems of that generation was capable of great looking games and could probably have been pushed a bit further than it was (although not as far as the others). All the systems had their strengths and weaknesses and all delivered some stunning games.

Barone
01-23-2014, 08:15 AM
TL:DR – Dreamcast while not as powerful as other systems of that generation was capable of great looking games and could probably have been pushed a bit further than it was (although not as far as the others). All the systems had their strengths and weaknesses and all delivered some stunning games.
The same could be said about the Wii and the Wii U.


Some old sources for a change since this thread has become a Nostradamus competition:
http://www.segatech.com/technical/consolecompare/
http://www.segatech.com/technical/polygons/index.html
http://www.segatech.com/technical/cpu/index.html
http://www.segatech.com/technical/gpu/index.html

http://www.ign.com/articles/1999/10/01/the-playstation-2-faq
http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/07/01/ps2-aliased-no-more
http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/11/04/gamecube-versus-playstation-2


http://www.segatech.com/gamecube/overview/

retrospiel
01-23-2014, 11:12 AM
Since when is IGN a reputable source ? Those segatech links are very nice though.

I always thought it was funny how Sega kept the numbers down to 3 million due to their dev kits when the actual hardware was closer to 10 million polygons/s, yet at the same time Sony claimed PS2 could do 75 million polygons/s at 1080p. It was just so ridiculous to see these numbers parroted all over the media when the screenshots showed that i.e. Dead or Alive 2 clearly looked worse than the Dreamcast version as it rendered the character models at half the vertical resolution (which is what they claim would be due to "aliasing" at that stupid IGN link).

Black_Tiger
01-23-2014, 11:24 AM
I think that if the DC had been allowed to continue, it would have received a ram pak/cart like the Saturn/N64 did. It wouldn't have made it superior to other consoles, but it would have made it at least on par with Naomi 1 (plus made Naomi 2 ports much easier) and combined with more modern development techniques, we would have seen a dramatic increase in visual quality. But it didn't happen, so we'll never know what it could and couldn't do.

Team Andromeda
01-23-2014, 11:27 AM
When Gran Turismo 4 has more than two cars on screen I don't see the difference from Le Mans and F355.

GT 3/4 Polygons models destroy both those games and there's more than 2 cars on screen . GT 3 on the PS 2 also have a great Heat Haze effect something which I never saw in any DC racer.


If the Mega Drive got canceled within a couple years

Games like GT 3, DMC and MGS 2 (demo) came out in 2001 not years latter . It was quite clear early in, that the Snes had issues with sprites to that of the Mega Drive .


If you'd like to say that the PS2 got to display more polygons in games or do more impressive 3D in general

Never said more impressive 3D . Just way more polygons there is a difference .


But the Dreamcast got cut short before it really got rolling and never had top publishers pushing the hardware with huge budgets. So we'll never know what it was actually capable of.

That's not quite true . Shenmue 1 and II had over 200 staff and some $50/60 odd million put into those titles . Code Veronica millions from SEGA and a Huge Team with SEGA,Capcom, and Nextech working on the title. Sonic Ad 170 staff (at key points) and millions and millions from SEGA. Sakura Wars 3 and IV again over 100 staff and millions spent on production . SEGA GT millions from SEGA Japan and years in development , PSO - Huge budget (not least on the music), Grandia II millions from SEGA and over 100 staff , Head Hunter millions from SEGA Europe and over 4 years in development , Skies Of Arcadia 100 staff and years in development , MSR millions from SEGA Europe and over 3 years in development .

Not that it always takes millions and massive team to make a console sing. JSR was done in less than 12 months with a small team and production values

stu
01-23-2014, 01:58 PM
I was just being sarcastic and ironic towards your nonsense in this thread. Trolling would be flooding the thread with nonsense/exaggerated stuff, and that's what you did several times by yourself.



Several of your statements don't need to be run on to the absurd 'cause they are already absurd in their original form.



I hope someday you'll be able to re-read some of your posts in this thread and provide a rational support to them or just delete them for the greater good.



sheath, it's about you and *only* you in this entire thread trying to prove that the Dreamcast graphical capabilities were on par or better with the PS2 and GC ones while dismissing the PS2 library for no good reason almost all the time.
There's no misunderstanding or anything, there's just you *flooding* the whole thread with your personal generalizations, PS2 library dismissive statements, PS2/GC graphical capabilities dismissive statements and trying to force everyone to agree with them.

Now, in the real world, the Dreamcast went unsupported very early in the 6th gen run and that makes it VERY DIFFICULT to assume, as you ALWAYS do and want everybody else to do as well, that based on its released games it FOR SURE could have matched or surpassed the graphical quality of the later PS2 games (in such context, Burnout 2 is a 2002 game and it already shows features and characteristics that I'm having a very hard time to find in a similar level in 2001 DC games; stuff like that DOESN'T PROVE anything but it ISN'T A GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THE DC BY ANY MEANS) or the GC-based ones. The OFFICIAL numbers, be them right or wrong, also point to the OPPOSITE direction of your statements.
Furthermore, you didn't manage to find A SINGLE INTERVIEW or TESTIMONIAL of a developer stating that the DC graphical capabilities were, at least, on par with the PS2 ones. And, actually, the developers used to point, again, TO THE OPPOSITE direction of what you claim.
So, by any means, feel free to call me a troll and liar how many times you want, but in this very thread it's you and not me trying to "prove" something that goes against ALL evidences we have.
Thanks. ;)



Observing? No, you're generalizing your personal experience based on a handful of games (from which several are DC-to-PS2 ports according to you) and trying to state that as a fact about the whole libraries of both consoles:



Now, please, tell everybody how I distort your posts.



First, let's see what you actually said:

That's just you saying bollocks about the whole lifespan of a console based on your own experience (some of which were already opposed by stu, for an example) and gaming tastes. Your view about something is NOT the same thing of a historical fact.
And, actually, that would be a very hard-to-define "fact" since the perception of the gameplay can vary a lot from gamer to gamer. Like the millions of gamers who enjoy the gameplay of GoW series while you think it's all QTE with no gameplay.
We also have people in this forum which defined, to the contrary of my opinion, your "unique genre blender" Shenmue as a "glorified demo". Deal with it.



You actually stated "The textures are ultra low detail and color" and "the background models look like toys and some parts of the characters look like they are non-textured lit polygons with cellophane wrapped around them" about VF4 Evo. Which is both wrong and exaggerated.



We both know that your approach in this thread have been very different from that.



Somehow making absurd and/or exaggerated and/or passionate and/or biased claims through an entire thread will often result in bad things.



Please, tell me, what's the "face value" of stuff like this:



To moderate your passionate statements and contain your hatred towards a given company or brand would make your arguments sound a lot better in any future discussions.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Barone again. And I agree in particular the last point which I emphasized.




The thing for me is that these discussions always descend into “here is an example of a game on PS2 that Dreamcast definitely couldn’t do” whereas the focus should be on “could the Dreamcast have “competed” with the other systems of that generation for longer than it did?”

Of course the Dreamcast is less powerful than the XBOX. The Dreamcast launched in November 98 in Japan whereas the XBOX was released in 2001. They could almost belong to different generations. It is also ok to prefer a systems library to another systems library (regardless of the quality or quantity of the other libraries available). It is a bit like supporting a football team – you know that the team you support aren’t as good or as skilful as say Barcelona or Bayern Munich but that doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of stunning moments, nail biting drama, late match winning goals and winning a one off game against superior opposition. Having said that consoles shouldn’t be tribal like football supporters and you should be able to support more than one…….

The difficulty with EVERY generation is that the first machine released tends to get a lot of, often lazy, up ports from the previous Gen. These are often pretty much copy and paste jobs with maybe a marginal increase in resolution and frame rate rather than all new polygon models etc. Look at XBOX 360 – at launch a lot of the games were things like King Kong and Gun which clearly betrayed their previous gen origins. The Dreamcast also suffered from this with a lot of pretty lazy ports from PS1 (and PC). Developers/Publishers tend to develop for the dominant platform and then use that version as the basis for a port to the other machines. This often results in either A) a marginally enhanced port B) a straight like for like port or C) a lazy port that is actually worse than the original rather than using the capabilities of the hardware. Understandable as the aim is to get something workable out of the door to sell. Often Developers will code for the lowest common denominator across the hardware so lets say we have three machines, one limited by polygon count, one limited by texture memory and one has no such restrictions – generally the game will be developed with low polygon models with repeated textures across all three systems.

One thing that also happens is that developers learn new techniques and “cheats” to simulate effects previously thought impossible on the hardware. I remember reading that the developers worked out a way of simulating HDR light bloom effects in Shadow of the Colossus based on techniques used on the 360. Will try to find the source of this.

It should be no shock that games developed specifically with the strengths of any given hardware in mind are usually far more impressive than multi platform ports. Check out the top exclusives on any of the platforms and you’ll see the true power of the systems. MGS2 was clearly coded around the idiosyncrasies of the PS2 which is why the XBOX port was disappointing. Clearly a MGS game coded with the strengths of the original XBOX in mind could have been a stunner.

With regards to PS2 it was more powerful than Dreamcast in a lot of ways (as it should be launching in March 2000 so over a year later) but it wasn’t as all conquering as the hype would have you believe. Because of Sony’s dominance in the market place and the fact that GameCube and XBOX were still some way off and because many developers had put all their eggs in the Sony basket they had to make it work, they had to learn to code for the convoluted hardware (in a way they didn’t have to for Saturn as they had the PS1 as an easy to develop for alternative). What would have been very interesting is if XBOX had launched the same day as PS2 or if XBOX was the lead platform for more of the multi platform games (like it was late on for stuff like TOCA 3)

Having said I do remember that the PS2 had an insanely high fill rate compared to anything that gen (and even higher than PS3 and possibly 360).

So back to my original “What if” – could the Dreamcast have competed with the other consoles of that generation longer than it did? I’d say yes. The reason being that it wasn’t hardware short-comings that caused Sega to pull the plug when they did but a lack of money. The hardware was clearly capable of competing with 90% of the stuff that was released on the other systems (and also may have benefitted from middleware solutions) and only fell short of maybe the top end 10% of stuff coded around the strengths of the others.

Could the Dreamcast have run the same games exactly the same as the PS2 versions? Probably not but then the stock PS2 couldn’t run certain Dreamcast games exactly the same way as a Dreamcast either (for example PSO – built in modem of DC allows people to play it online as intended – PS2 would need an add on (although I guess the PSTwo had a built in Ethernet port). I do believe that the Dreamcast could have done perfectly respectable versions of most of the games of that generation though.

Lets assume that Sega didn’t have the money troubles that caused it to go to software only. Sega pulled the plug in 2001 and the software dried up in 2002 (lets ignore late games like Under Defeat, Karous, Radirgy etc and the indie releases) so the machine lasted from 98/99 until 2002. So let’s say a 2 and a half year run. I truly believe it could have lasted (in terms of hardware remaining competitive) until at least 2004 which would have meant a 4 and a half to 5 year run and would have meant a Sega machine launched in 2004 ( a year before 360).

If this seems to far fetched then how about a scenario where Sega did go multi format and did not release further hardware but continued to release software for Dreamcast until 2004 as well as on the other machines. This would mean the only place to get all Sega games in one place would be on Dreamcast. Let’s assume some limited third party support too. What would the software line up have looked like? I think something like this:

2001 to 2004
Shinobi (PS2 and Dreamcast)
Nightshade (PS2 and Dreamcast)
Gun Valkyrie (XBOX and Dreamcast)
ToeJam and Earl 3 (XBOX and Dreamcast)
Panzer Dragoon Orta (XBOX and Dreamcast)
Sonic Heroes (all platforms)
Super Monkey Ball (GameCube and Dreamcast)
Super Monkey Ball 2 (all platforms)
Jet Set Radio Future (XBOX and Dreamcast)
Headhunter Redemption (XBOX/PS2 and Dreamcast)
Beach Spikers (GameCube and Dreamcast)
Virtua Striker 3 (GameCube and Dreamcast)
Virtua Fighter 4 (PS2 and Dreamcast)
Billy Hatcher (GameCube and Dreamcast)
Project Gotham Racing (XBOX and released on Dreamcast as Project Gotham Racing: MSR 2)
NBA 2K3
NFL 2K3
NHL 2K3
WSL 2K3
Sega Soccer Slam (all platforms)
House of the Dead 3 (XBOX and Dreamcast)

Add in some translations of:
Segagaga
Hundred Swords
Rent-a-Hero


Let’s add in ports of popular multi platform titles such as:

Tony Hawks 3 (came out on PS1 and N64 and the Dreamcast can play it via Bleem)
Tony Hawks 4 (can play the PS1 version via Bleem)
Soul Calibur 2 (Namco – featuring an exclusive character – maybe Ryo from ShenMue)
Mr Driller 2 (Namco)
Burnout (using Vanishing Point as a frame of reference)
True Crime: Streets of LA (if you assume GTA3 wouldn’t be possible then this should be doable – it came out on GameCube – use Super Runabout as an idea of what it could be like)
Medal of Honour series (Front Line and European Assault?)
Call of Duty (early entries like Big Red One, Their Finest Hour)


As well as some ports of some of the other things they released at the time:

Sonic Pinball Party (GBA and Dreamcast)
House of the Dead Pinball (GBA and Dreamcast)
SEGA AGES Collection (PS2 and Dreamcast – the 3D budget remakes bundled as a 10 game collection)
Mini Moni Tambourine (ported from PS1 and using a tambourine peripheral)

Some arcade ports by Sega:
Wild Riders
Planet Harriers
Daytona 2
Scud Race
Virtua Cop 3


And some speculative sequels:
Power Stone 3 (Capcom)
Ecco the Dolphin 2
Virtua Tennis 3 (or if this seems too much of a stretch a home only version called some like Virtua Tennis Championship 2003)
Yu Suzuki Game Works Vol 2
SNK vs Capcom Card Fighters (cross compatible with the NGPC version)
And a port of SNK vs Capcom Chaos

Seems a fairly decent selection of titles.

To be honest all the systems of that generation were capable of great looking games.

The Dreamcast could have handled probably 80% of the titles that came out on the other 3 platforms (with minor downgrades etc in terms of poly count, frame rate, resolution etc if required) and wouldn’t have got most of the remaining 20% anyway which would lean towards exclusives etc but would counter these with its own first party offerings.

Checking the list of PS2 games that sold over a million copies – once you exclude the stuff that was exclusive (effectively first party stuff in a lot of ways) like the Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Gran Turismo etc series then you get left with a lot of EA sports games (the Maddens, Fifa’s etc), and lots of licensed stuff like SpiderMan the Movie, Simpsons Hit and Run, Lord of the Rings, Lego “film series” trilogy etc etc all of which I reckon the DC could have made a decent stab at. Not exact replica’s but close enough. If EA had decided to actually support Dreamcast I’m pretty sure it could have handled most of the games they released – I mean the Visual Concepts sports games look fairly close graphically to the EA equivalents.

TL:DR – Dreamcast while not as powerful as other systems of that generation was capable of great looking games and could probably have been pushed a bit further than it was (although not as far as the others). All the systems had their strengths and weaknesses and all delivered some stunning games.

A well written, fair and balanced post. It sure is better than the negative "PS2 looks like ass and its games suck" type posts that are all over this thread. I agree that the Dreamcast probably could of managed ports of some of the later PS2 games, maybe the developers might have had to made changes maybe not. Repped

Chilly Willy
01-23-2014, 03:20 PM
Since when is IGN a reputable source ? Those segatech links are very nice though.

I always thought it was funny how Sega kept the numbers down to 3 million due to their dev kits when the actual hardware was closer to 10 million polygons/s, yet at the same time Sony claimed PS2 could do 75 million polygons/s at 1080p. It was just so ridiculous to see these numbers parroted all over the media when the screenshots showed that i.e. Dead or Alive 2 clearly looked worse than the Dreamcast version as it rendered the character models at half the vertical resolution (which is what they claim would be due to "aliasing" at that stupid IGN link).

Remember that polys/sec and resolution have nothing in common. They're both just end figures. How many frames per second you can render depends on both the polys/sec, and the number of polys a frame requires to draw the entire scene, and that last value is almost never given for particular games (it varies from game to game, and even inside a single game).

Likewise, the resolution being output to the TV has nothing to do with the game, either. The PS2 has a couple of registers referred to as the horizontal magnification and the vertical magnification. They allow any size final bitmap for the rendered display to be scaled (either up or down) to fit whatever size resolution is being output to the TV. So while Sony may crow about 1080 resolution output, the game is still maybe only drawing 320x240. That is then stretched to 1920x1080 for display on the TV. Most early games were 320x240, and then you saw some 640x240. Towards the middle and end, you saw more 640x480 games. By that time, a lot more people had EDTV/HDTV.

Bottino
01-23-2014, 06:18 PM
Of course the Dreamcast is less powerful than the XBOX. The Dreamcast launched in November 98 in Japan whereas the XBOX was released in 2001. They could almost belong to different generations. It is also ok to prefer a systems library to another systems library (regardless of the quality or quantity of the other libraries available). It is a bit like supporting a football team – you know that the team you support aren’t as good or as skilful as say Barcelona or Bayern Munich but that doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of stunning moments, nail biting drama, late match winning goals and winning a one off game against superior opposition. Having said that consoles shouldn’t be tribal like football supporters and you should be able to support more than one…….


Your whole argumentation was great, but this particular segment is just pure gold.

Especially because during the 99/2000 season Sega & Dreamcast sponsored Arsenal F.C
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/06/dreamcast.jpg

j_factor
01-23-2014, 06:49 PM
Of course the Dreamcast is less powerful than the XBOX. The Dreamcast launched in November 98 in Japan whereas the XBOX was released in 2001. They could almost belong to different generations.

Funny how there is a shorter period of time between the launches of Dreamcast and N64, than there is between Dreamcast and Gamecube or Xbox. Yet, Dreamcast is certainly a lot closer to the latter two than it is to the former.

stu
01-23-2014, 07:09 PM
Funny how there is a shorter period of time between the launches of Dreamcast and N64, than there is between Dreamcast and Gamecube or Xbox. Yet, Dreamcast is certainly a lot closer to the latter two than it is to the former.

If you had said the PS2 and Gamecube I would agree with you, however imo I think the Xbox is far enough out in front of the other 3 systems that it almost does belong in a different generation.

sheath
01-23-2014, 07:11 PM
That's really not my thing. I don't intend to "correct" history.

History hasn't been written yet for the Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube or Xbox consoles. I doubt I will have any part in writing any of it either.



The problem is that you have ZERO technical arguments and details to make such a strong claim.

I'm the only one who doesn't have any facts? How many polygons per second does F-Zero GX push? What about the demands on VRAM for texture maps? Normal mapping or other more modern effects, do we know a single thing? Again you took my statement, that F-Zero GX would not look as low end as Magforce Racing on Dreamcast, and ran it to the absurd. This is why I posted Daytona 2001 on Dreamcast and F-Zero GX together.

It is completely obvious that a Dreamcast version of F-Zero GX would be significantly better in every respect than Magforce Racing. This was my only point.



It doesn't make the game look any better though, sheath. And we are in a graphics discussion.

So we should develop a list of graphical effects that you think make a game look "better" in this generation and go from there.



Do you really believe that? When will you assume all your pathetic claims in this thread?

I will never assume or accept what you and a couple of others have read into my statements. The actual truth is as I have always said, we need more facts not more opinions. Have we really come to the place that we can look at a 3D game from that generation and just eyeball which is a generational leap ahead without any assistance? If so, I will end any part I have in this discussion right now.



Best looking PS2 games shit all over the best looking DC games. Like it or not.
The rest is all conjectures, esoteric projections and assumptions by you with ZERO technical data to support.

And I'm getting convinced that you can't deal with that in a reasonable way.

I have actually posted every technical document I have found so far on the two systems' performance. To say otherwise is crude and insulting. You know what I want, more facts. If the PS2 ends up being the polygon monster Sony always promised, even if that took five, eight or ten years, I will not deny it. Do you have that fact documented? Why have you not shared it? Why are you going completely nuts on me if you have not seen documentation of a PS2 game well and above the Dreamcast performance wise?

Yharnamresident
01-23-2014, 11:42 PM
If you had said the PS2 and Gamecube I would agree with you, however imo I think the Xbox is far enough out in front of the other 3 systems that it almost does belong in a different generation.Other 3? hold your horses pal. The Xbox only has about 15% more power than GameCube.

I look at it this way. The 6th gen has two sub-generations, being Dreamcast/PS2 then GameCube/Xbox. If you look at all their launch dates, my theory makes perfect sense.

F-Zero GX still needs downgrades for older hardware.

stu
01-24-2014, 12:44 AM
Other 3? hold your horses pal. The Xbox only has about 15% more power than GameCube.

I look at it this way. The 6th gen has two sub-generations, being Dreamcast/PS2 then GameCube/Xbox. If you look at all their launch dates, my theory makes perfect sense.

F-Zero GX still needs downgrades for older hardware.


Where are you getting that 15% figure from.

According to this: http://www.segatech.com/technical/consolecompare/

It shows that the Xbox has BIG advantages in pretty much every area vs the Gamecube.

In Texel Fill Rate the GC is rated at 648MT/sec and the Xbox is rated at 1864 MT/sec - that alone is almost 3 times as much fill rate for the Xbox.

In Rendering Bandwidth the GC is rated at 2.2GB/s and the Xbox is rated 5.6GB/s - thats over 2 times as much bandwidth.

I'm not putting down the GC, but its pretty clear the Xbox is far ahead of it.

In the end launch dates don't mean anything, its the hardware in the box that counts and Xbox smokes the GC.

Yharnamresident
01-24-2014, 01:10 AM
So I guess you're not going to accept the fact that the gap between PS2 and GameCube, is bigger than the gap between GameCube and Xbox.

GreyFox
01-24-2014, 09:02 AM
I had a thought regarding the Dreamcast/XBOX debate as to almost belonging to different generations and how that whole 6th Generation was an unusual one compared to the others.

I think the XBOX was probably the only time a machine had been released in the same generation as another machine and was more capable in every way with no drawback/weakness in any area or without buying additional peripherals/upgrades etc

What I mean is that in the 6th Generation there was Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube and XBOX. From what I read the XBOX basically had the overall strongest hardware of all the machines (it lost out in fill rate to PS2 etc but overall could be judged the “strongest” and it seems it could pretty much do any Dreamcast at least as well as the Dreamcast (if they were ported) without a single drawback. Obviously this isn’t a comprehensive list but:

XBOX vs DC
XBOX could push more polygons with more effects, more lighting, same or better resolution and with better texture compression

The CPU etc were faster and could handle more

The sound hardware was capable of more channels

More Memory for everything

DC’s built in modem negated by the built in Ethernet of XBOX

XBOX also had a built in Hard Drive allowing for more flexibility

Both had 4 controller ports

The XBOX pad had the same buttons and stick as the DC pad (i.e. 4 main face buttons, one analogue stick, analogue triggers, D-Pad) but also had extra buttons and another analogue stick and built in rumble.

Theoretically, if ported by a capable team the XBOX should have been able to run perfect ports (or enhanced ports) of every single Dreamcast game regardless of whether it was coded around the specialities of the Dreamcast hardware. It had online , it had the graphics, sound and resolution capabilities and more.

They both even benefitted around easy to develop for/PC style architecture and both shared third party support (obviously XBOX had more third party support but much cross-over)

The only difference would be:
Any game using the VMU as a second screen (e.g. choosing your plays secretly in NFL 2K)
Neo Geo Pocket Link Up

In every other generation while machines might come out some distance apart from one another all of the “major” systems would have some kind of bottleneck or hardware constraint that could be perceived a a weakness and would allow one of the other machines of that generation to run certain games better than others. Apologies for the simplistic nature of the following comparisons but just labouring the point

3rd Generation:
NES vs Master System – Master System had more colours and better sound but NES appeared to be able to overcome much of this with on cart add-ons. NES controller also had more buttons than Master System meaning some games worked better than they would on Master System.

4th Generation:
PC Engine vs Megadrive/Genesis vs SNES
PC Engine – lots of colours, lack of parallax, decent sound, one control port (needed adaptor for multiplayer) pad with limited number of buttons
Megadrive – limited colours and arguably limited sound but very fast CPU that developers were very familiar with (pad with more buttons than PC engine), best at polygonal 3D without enhancement chips
SNES – great sound and colour capabilities but ham strung by slow CPU, mode 7 (most buttons on pad of generation)

Clearly each could run certain games better than the other machines of the same generation. While you could probably get most the games of any machine in this gen running on the others there would be compromises in terms of controls, colour, slowdown, parallax layers, mode 7 effects


5th Generation
PS1 vs Saturn vs N64
PS1 – decent 2D, fast chunky 3D, CD media, easy to develop for, only two controller ports (I’m going to allow Dual analogue as although it originally shipped with a digital only pad they did pack in the analogues for much of its life), good FMV playback

Saturn – awesome 2D, decent 3D (in the right hands), CD media, only two controller ports, very difficult dev environment, use of VDP effects difficult to replicate on the others

N64 – some of the best 3D, “D was capable but not really pushed (possibly due to lack of cartridge space) cartridge media, 4 controller ports, analogue pad as standard.

So I think taking an example of a game each could run that the others would struggle to run “as well” or “better” than the original hardware:

Saturn – Radiant SilverGun ( due to background effects)

PS1 – not sure – Gran Turismo? Final Fantasy 7 (due to combination of FMV and polygons)

N64 – Wave Race (for the wave physics) GoldenEye (graphics but more because of 4 player support on the base console)

Even on the recent generation:

360 and PS3 are similarly capable but seem to both have strengths and weaknesses compared to each other
Wii – unique motion controls (as standard)

So it would appear that no machine in another generation would be capable of running “exact” or “enhanced” ports of EVERY game in the library of another machine in the same generation. I suspect the XBOX could have handled “exact” or “enhanced” (in terms of frame-rate, resolution etc) ports of the entire Dreamcast library.

Bear in mind in no way makes the Dreamcast any lesser of a console. Just wanted to highlight what an unusual generation that one was in so many ways.

Kamahl
01-24-2014, 12:00 PM
Master System had more colours and better sound
:wtf:

Gogogadget
01-24-2014, 12:04 PM
SMS has better sound than the NES?

Hmmm... nope.

Better graphics though sure.

GreyFox
01-24-2014, 12:52 PM
Yeah fair point re sound on NES and SMS (without the FM module) this makes my point valid though - both systems had different strengths and weaknesses

sheath
01-24-2014, 01:30 PM
I am sure we will see the PS1's 2D capabilities as quite advanced as well based on Barone's tests. This requires a lot of exposure to the Japanese PS1 library though.

I completely agree that the Xbox was the best hardware of the generation, and should have been able to handle a port of even hard coded Dreamcast games without a problem. DOA3 and Shenmue 2, along with Panzer Dragoon Orta, Gun Valkyrie and Spike Out Battle Street all of which I assume started life on the Dreamcast or Naomi 1-2 hardware, show this plainly. The Xbox actually is what Sony and Sony fans claim of the PS2. It is unfortunate that a good chunk of its multi-platform library is limited by the PS2 being the 70%+ sales leader of that generation.

Something this thread has neglected is that all of this has already been partially covered in the 6th gen thread (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?22176-Comparison-of-6th-generation-game-console-hardware&p=537435&viewfull=1#post537435). I also attempted to list the Dreamcast, Gamecube and Xbox GPU hardware capabilities (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?22176-Comparison-of-6th-generation-game-console-hardware&p=565243&viewfull=1#post565243). As always I post these things to improve them, but not much has come from this discussion or the 6th Gen one that wasn't already known. The Sega Tech article's charts, for example, fail to mention the effective fillrate for the PVR-DC increases with the complexity of the scene. This could amount to anywhere from 200-500Mtexels per second, versus the plain jane 100Mtexels from the chart.

There are plenty of facts to be put on the table I am sure, and most of them are being ignored by the PS2 loyal already.

tomaitheous
01-24-2014, 01:30 PM
Where are you getting that 15% figure from.

According to this: http://www.segatech.com/technical/consolecompare/

It shows that the Xbox has BIG advantages in pretty much every area vs the Gamecube.

In Texel Fill Rate the GC is rated at 648MT/sec and the Xbox is rated at 1864 MT/sec - that alone is almost 3 times as much fill rate for the Xbox.

In Rendering Bandwidth the GC is rated at 2.2GB/s and the Xbox is rated 5.6GB/s - thats over 2 times as much bandwidth.

I'm not putting down the GC, but its pretty clear the Xbox is far ahead of it.

In the end launch dates don't mean anything, its the hardware in the box that counts and Xbox smokes the GC.

Numbers will get you into trouble. For one, they list the MIPs for the processors. Two emulator authors took MIPs readings per frame for TG16 and Genesis. A lot of TG16 hucards ran about 1.8MIPs range while Genesis games ran 0.8 MIPs. But know for a fact that, that isn't anywhere near an accurate measurement of processor performance between these two systems. That's not how you measure performance between different architectures. And the PIII in the Xbox is a Celeron. I've seen quite a few recent sites, put the GC's processor ahead of the XBOX processor.

stu
01-24-2014, 03:44 PM
So I guess you're not going to accept the fact that the gap between PS2 and GameCube, is bigger than the gap between GameCube and Xbox.


My post was mostly querying where you got the 15% figure from, since most of the figures on that site show a much higher performance advantage in favor of the Xbox. I consider the DC/PS2/GC to mostly be equivalent to the PS/Sat/N64 of the previous generation, if I were to look for an equivalent of the Xbox in the previous generation of systems then I guess the 3DO M2 would probably have fit the bill (had it been launched of course - also technically the M2 was supposed to have been a extremely early 6th gen system, rather than a late 5th gen system). The point being that the DC/PS2/GC all had their own advantages and disadvantages, compared to the Xbox however it is clear the Xbox is ahead of the other systems


Numbers will get you into trouble. For one, they list the MIPs for the processors. Two emulator authors took MIPs readings per frame for TG16 and Genesis. A lot of TG16 hucards ran about 1.8MIPs range while Genesis games ran 0.8 MIPs. But know for a fact that, that isn't anywhere near an accurate measurement of processor performance between these two systems. That's not how you measure performance between different architectures. And the PIII in the Xbox is a Celeron. I've seen quite a few recent sites, put the GC's processor ahead of the XBOX processor.

I agree that looking at just the numbers does not show the whole picture, hence my puzzlement at azonicrider's "15%" post. I am aware that the XCPU is probably the one area that the Xbox is not quite so far ahead of the Gamecube and as you pointed out the GC CPU may in fact be ahead of the XCPU. I forget the specific reasons that Microsoft had for selecting that chip but I suspect it had to do with unit price (I own and have read through the "Opening the Xbox" book by Dean Takahashi but do not have my copy with me and cannot recall the specifics at this time). That being said the XGPU/NV2A chip has a number of advantages over the Flipper chip in the GC and since this thread started off as a graphics discussion/comparison/debate I felt that the examples I included illustrated my point. My general point was that the Xbox had a number of significant graphics chip advantages over the GC and that a vague percentage value did not adequately show that.

zyrobs
01-24-2014, 05:36 PM
Numbers will get you into trouble. For one, they list the MIPs for the processors. Two emulator authors took MIPs readings per frame for TG16 and Genesis. A lot of TG16 hucards ran about 1.8MIPs range while Genesis games ran 0.8 MIPs. But know for a fact that, that isn't anywhere near an accurate measurement of processor performance between these two systems. That's not how you measure performance between different architectures. And the PIII in the Xbox is a Celeron. I've seen quite a few recent sites, put the GC's processor ahead of the XBOX processor.

Yup, the numbers alone are not comparable, since both chips may have entirely different architectures with things like z-index compression to make better use memory bandwidth.

There was that old Matrox Parhelia card (I think) that had very high memory bandwidth, yet it performed worse than cards with less bandwidth because it wasted what it had... I think the DC PVR2 was like that too, it had a low fillrate, but it performed admirably well because the tile based deferred rendering didn't require much fillrate, etc...

j_factor
01-24-2014, 06:50 PM
I completely agree that the Xbox was the best hardware of the generation, and should have been able to handle a port of even hard coded Dreamcast games without a problem. DOA3 and Shenmue 2, along with Panzer Dragoon Orta, Gun Valkyrie and Spike Out Battle Street all of which I assume started life on the Dreamcast or Naomi 1-2 hardware, show this plainly.

I lost the link, but I remember seeing a very detailed comparison of Shenmue II, and there were a lot of minor differences that more often than not (but not always) favored the Dreamcast. I'm not sure why this is.

The Xbox hardware was a beast, though.

sheath
01-24-2014, 07:29 PM
I finally picked up Shenmue 2 for Xbox recently. I keep meaning to look into it more, but it seems like, at the least, it has a more solid framerate in the crowded areas. I will eventually want to make an HD comparison vid with closeups and focus on which one has more pop in characters and whatnot. At a glance I think the Xbox version should win handily.

j_factor
01-24-2014, 09:00 PM
This isn't the exact article I was thinking of, but it does go into similar detail. The thrust of this article is documenting differences, some of these are just changes in text and have no bearing on one being better than the other. But still, some interesting tidbits in here. Unfortunately the images are small and inaccurately resized. http://shenmuedojo.net/new/extras/s2xboxvsdreamcast.html

Yharnamresident
01-24-2014, 09:08 PM
I still stand by GameCube and Xbox being secondary 6th gen consoles. Xbox being a 3DO M2? not a chance in hell. I wanna know what game, or specs is making you overestimate the Xbox so much.

sheath
01-24-2014, 09:28 PM
This isn't the exact article I was thinking of, but it does go into similar detail. The thrust of this article is documenting differences, some of these are just changes in text and have no bearing on one being better than the other. But still, some interesting tidbits in here. Unfortunately the images are small and inaccurately resized. http://shenmuedojo.net/new/extras/s2xboxvsdreamcast.html

That brings up something else I was very hesitant to mention given the virulent way this thread went. Xbox games seem to have a higher degree of filtering than Dreamcast games, or sometimes the environmental effects just obscure the texture and polygon detail more. I noticed this right away when I played Shenmue II on Xbox, but I have no way of knowing whether the textures are blurrier or they are just more filtered by some effect. On the Gamecube version of Sonic Adventure I can clearly see that the textures were changed, and I have a very hard time deciding if the change was for the better or worse.

j_factor
01-24-2014, 09:38 PM
That brings up something else I was very hesitant to mention given the virulent way this thread went. Xbox games seem to have a higher degree of filtering than Dreamcast games, or sometimes the environmental effects just obscure the texture and polygon detail more. I noticed this right away when I played Shenmue II on Xbox, but I have no way of knowing whether the textures are blurrier or they are just more filtered by some effect. On the Gamecube version of Sonic Adventure I can clearly see that the textures were changed, and I have a very hard time deciding if the change was for the better or worse.

Not sure if I agree overall with regards to Xbox games, but I do think Shenmue II displays this to an extent. Looking at other close comparisons, there's a lack of sharpness to the Xbox version. Not sure what that's about.

Sonic Adventure, you're talking about the first one (and DX), yes? Not sure about the textures per se, but I do recall feeling that the Gamecube version looked very inconsistent, and that fact overpowered any improvements to me.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-24-2014, 09:39 PM
Yeah fair point re sound on NES and SMS (without the FM module) this makes my point valid though - both systems had different strengths and weaknesses

Even with the FM Sound Module I'd still give the NES the win if we're going to include Japanese upgrades:

GHG3e0bQe3I

ptgaCJSF7j8

SShijN6anW4

wkutLhZLI2U

Gb2fiA-IvNw

kJG7KYB23bM

Yharnamresident
01-24-2014, 09:53 PM
Eh Trekkies I don't agree with that, nothing there seems on-par with SMS FM. Plus SMS FM was actually stock in some hardware models.

sheath
01-24-2014, 09:56 PM
Not sure if I agree overall with regards to Xbox games, but I do think Shenmue II displays this to an extent. Looking at other close comparisons, there's a lack of sharpness to the Xbox version. Not sure what that's about.

Sonic Adventure, you're talking about the first one (and DX), yes? Not sure about the textures per se, but I do recall feeling that the Gamecube version looked very inconsistent, and that fact overpowered any improvements to me.

The biggest issue with Sonic Adventure DX is that it occasionally hits 60FPS but then drops just as low as the Dreamcast launch game frequently. Secondly, I found whatever they did to the textures made them seem more repetitive. They did fix a nasty bi-linear filtering problem from the Dreamcast game though, that made some scenes have really obvious steps down in texture quality less than half way from the camera.

On the greater amount of filtering thing, I noticed in the late 90s that games that originated on the PS1 looked better with unfiltered textures than they did filtered. Some games, like Shadow Man on Dreamcast, even gave you the option to see the difference in game and I preferred the unfiltered textures. I would love to know the texture resolutions and colors for this generation on a game by game basis, but I doubt short of learning how to hack the games I will ever see that. For the Xbox, if it took Shenmue's texture maps and applied a different texture filter plus environmental effect I have no doubt that the base detail level would be obscured.

j_factor
01-24-2014, 09:56 PM
I think if you're including special sound chips, the comparison doesn't even make sense anymore really. Because now the only limitation is what game companies were willing to put in there.

That said, I still agree that NES has better sound, generally speaking, than SMS.

j_factor
01-24-2014, 10:05 PM
The biggest issue with Sonic Adventure DX is that it occasionally hits 60FPS but then drops just as low as the Dreamcast launch game frequently. Secondly, I found whatever they did to the textures made them seem more repetitive. They did fix a nasty bi-linear filtering problem from the Dreamcast game though, that made some scenes have really obvious steps down in texture quality less than half way from the camera.

Yeah, I had the same issues with the game. To this day I'll stick with the Dreamcast version.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-24-2014, 10:05 PM
Eh Trekkies I don't agree with that, nothing there seems on-par with SMS FM. Plus SMS FM was actually stock in some hardware models.

Lagrange Point uses the VRC7 chip, which is essentially a Konami mapper with a YM2413 in it. You know, the same chip that's in the Master System's FM Sound Module? It's not only on par, it's better because it has the better NES base hardware to work together with it.

Yharnamresident
01-24-2014, 10:28 PM
Ok I see that makes sense.

And while we're at it, lets say the SNES can render 3D polygons because you can put chips in carts.

j_factor
01-24-2014, 10:43 PM
Ok I see that makes sense.

And while we're at it, lets say the SNES can render 3D polygons because you can put chips in carts.

It can render polygons without a chip in the cart. Just not very well. :p

Yharnamresident
01-24-2014, 10:48 PM
It can render polygons without a chip in the cart. Just not very well. :pYou know what I'm saying dude. Satisfactory 3D is not Hard Drivin'.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-24-2014, 10:49 PM
Ok I see that makes sense.

And while we're at it, lets say the SNES can render 3D polygons because you can put chips in carts.

So can the Genesis...

The point here was if we are going to bring up expansion audio for one system, we may as well bring it up for the other. And when you do that the NES will still come out better than the Master System as far as audio is concerned.

Yharnamresident
01-24-2014, 11:00 PM
This reminds me of the AVGN SNES VS. Genesis video, where he threw in an unlicensed product to give the win to SNES. Double standards.

tomaitheous
01-24-2014, 11:00 PM
I actually like the sound and compositions of the NES, over SMS FM. Just because something is FM, doesn't automatically make it superior. SMS FM is definitely a nice upgrade over the limited SMS PSG sound, but even the stock NES sound beats it out IMO. I also like the Famicom expansion chips that expand the sound channels of the system, but don't take it out of the characteristic sound of the system. I.e. I'm not impressed with Larange Point sound chip. I like the ones that add a few PSG channels. That's all the NES really needed; a few more channels. Just listen to stuff like Journey to Silius or Batman, or Megaman 2, etc.

TrekkiesUnite118
01-24-2014, 11:17 PM
This reminds me of the AVGN SNES VS. Genesis video, where he threw in an unlicensed product to give the win to SNES. Double standards.

What the hell is the double standard here? The FM Sound Module is an optional add-on for the Mark III and is only built into the Japanese Master System. Expansion Audio on the NES is simply built into the cart and will work on any Japanese system. Both are essentially upgrades handled in two different ways. There's no double standard here at all. If you open the door for expanded audio upgrades like the FM Sound Module for the Master System, you need to bring in the Famicom's Expanded Audio capabilities as well to keep the argument fair.

Yharnamresident
01-24-2014, 11:38 PM
It just don't seem right, including some cart chip that can only be used by that single game, has to be included in every cart manufactured, VS. an official add-on that becomes part of the system's hardware forever.

Someone in 2014 could make a cart chip for the SMS with Dolby Digital support, and say "oh now the SMS has better sound".

TrekkiesUnite118
01-24-2014, 11:49 PM
It just don't seem right, including some cart chip that can only be used by that single game, has to be included in every cart manufactured, VS. an official add-on that becomes part of the system's hardware forever.

Someone in 2014 could make a cart chip for the SMS with Dolby Digital support, and say "oh now the SMS has better sound".

They could just as easily make it as an add-on and use the same expansion port the FM Module uses, what's your point?

Famicom Expansion audio is just as official as the FM Sound module, it's an official feature of the system that quite a few popular games make use of. Even Nintendo made use of it with the Famicom Disk System which is why games like Zelda, Metroid, Castlevania 2, etc. all sound different when compared to their US counterparts.

With one approach you have it as an optional add-on that not everyone might have, so you either a) Limit your audience by making that add-on required, or b) make the game compatibile with both set ups resulting in music that might not take full advantage of the new sound. The other approach makes your game cost a little more, but it's guaranteed to work for everyone who owns the stock system.

The only one making a double standard here is you. You're using expanded audio capabilities to claim one system is superior while dismissing the other systems expanded audio capabilities.